Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Duncan Sheehan |
| Date: |
Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:35:11 +0100 |
| Re: |
Undue Influence & Natural Obligations |
Dear all,
I imagine that if there were a natural obligation, at
least how I define them, that the answer would be no the transaction does
not call for an explanation if there is one. I say this because if natural
obligations arise because we see the agreement to do act X as being worthy
of some recognition, despite being unenforceable, it is inconsistent to
say that there can be a natural obligation where there is undue influence,
or undue influence where there is a natural obligation. Where there is
undue influence the law states that there is a need to protect the claimant,
which negatives the possibility of a natural obligation.
Duncan
Dr Duncan Sheehan -----Original Message----- Does "natural obligation"
mean that "the transaction does not call for an explanation"?
And perhaps that it does not reveal "manifest disadvantage"?
Postgraduate Admissions Officer
Norwich Law School
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
From: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues
On Behalf Of Lionel Smith
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [RDG:] Undue Influence & Natural Obligations
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
