Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
William Swadling |
| Date: |
Thu, 1 Apr 2004 20:24:17 +0100 |
| Re: |
Undue Influence |
If I pay you £100 by mistake, you commit no wrong in
your receipt. Yet a court will intervene and order you to repay me that
amount. The point which Mummery LJ is making, and quite rightly so, is
that the repayment of money paid through undue influence can be explained
as a species of unjust enrichment, without any need to rely on wrongdoing.
W J Swadling
----- Original Message ----- If UI is not a wrong of some sort then
why should the court be intervening? Why should I have to look out for
the best interests of someone else? If the best that the Eng. CA can
come up with is policy (which tends to make me suspicious), then I would
at least like to know which policy is being served and why this might
outweigh other policies such as certainty, etc.
From: Jason Neyers
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 5:14 PM
Subject: [RDG:] Undue Influence
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
