Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Andrew Dickinson |
| Date: |
Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:35:59 -0500 |
| Re: |
Barnet v Anandh |
Without having read this case, I offer the following
"top of the head" thoughts:
1. If Anandh knew that he was not entitled to receive
the sums from his clients because they were tainted by illegality then,
in my view, he should not be entitled to rely on the change of position
defence.
2. Counter-restitution (i.e. the assertion that he conferred
a valuable benefit on the clients which ought to be returned) may be a
different matter (cf. Guinness v. Saunders), but ought not to be available
here (1) on the ground of illegality, and (2) because the clients could
argue that they (subjectively) had not been enriched because they would
not have been prepared to pay anything for treatment by an unlicensed
ophthalmologist.
Regards
Andrew
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
