Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

An original subject for a restitution problem yesterday in the English CA: McDonald v Coys of Kensington [2004] EWCA Civ. 47.

I sell by auction a Mercedes worth £17,000 with a super plate (TAC 1) worth £15,000. I tell the auctioneers to retain the registration and just sell the car, leaving it up to the buyer to get a bog-standard plate. The auctioneers make it clear on my behalf (i.e. making it part of the contract of sale) that the buyer doesn't get the plate: the car is knocked down to the buyer for £17,000. Unfortunately there's been a cock-up by the auctioneers in their dealings with DVLA Swansea, and in the event the buyer is entitled under road traffic law to both car and registration. I ask the buyer to transfer the registration back to me: he tells me to get stuffed. Buyer liable in unjust enrichment for the value of the plate. One might have thought this was a simple case of mistake (I transfer more than the contract provided). But the judgment also gives us an interesting tour of reprehensible seeking-out (broadly pro) and incontrovertible benefit.

Andrew

Andrew Tettenborn MA LLB
Bracton Professor of Law

Tel: 01392-263189 / +44-392-263189 (international)
Cellphone: 07729-266200 / +44-7729-266200 (international)
Fax: 01392-263196 / +44-392-263196 (international)

Snailmail: School of Law,
University of Exeter,
Amory Building,
Rennes Drive,
Exeter EX4 4RJ
England

[School homepage: http://www.ex.ac.uk/law/ ]
[My homepage:
http://www.ex.ac.uk/law/staff/tettenborn/index.html].