![]() |
RDG
online Restitution Discussion Group Archives |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
My apologies for the double post to RDG and ODG members:
For those interested in comparative law there are some
interesting articles on global jurist: see "The Canadian Constructive
Trust and the French Negotiorum Gestio: Two Institutions Serving one Same
Legal Concept ?" at http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol3/iss3/art3;
and
"The Protection of the Weak Contractual Party in Italy
vs. United States Doctrine of Unconscionability. A Comparative Analysis"
at http://www.bepress.com/gj/advances/vol3/iss3/art2.
The House of Lords has also recently released a decision
dealing with the Scottish law of trusts in relation to claims in bankruptcy
and the "unjust enrichment" that this might cause, see Burnett's Trustee
(Respondent) v. Grainger and another (Appellants) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/
pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040304/burnet-1.htm.
The facts were as follows: A, the owner, sells her flat
to B and C. B and C pay the price to A and, in return, she delivers the
relevant title documents to them. B and C take possession of the flat,
but do not record their title in the register. A goes bankrupt and, on
the basis that the flat remains part of her estate at the date of the
bankruptcy, the trustee, who knows of the disposition to B and C, records
a notice of title to the flat in the register. B and C then record their
title. The House of Lords held that the trustee's title is to be preferred
and that he can evict B and C from the flat without repaying the price
since time of registry is the criteria of true ownership.
Should there be some sort of remedy for B and C? Would
there be a claim in the English or Canadian version of unjust enrichment?
Cheers,
-- <== Previous message Back to index Next message ==> |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
» » » » » |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |