Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

The issue, surely, is not about an 'explanation' at all. The transfer in Allcard v Skinner, for example, can be 'explained' as one where the novice was acting under the influence of the Mother Superior. Similarly, the 'explanation' of Chase Manhattan is that the second transfer was made by mistake. Indeed, if these 'explanations' were removed, the ground of claim would simply disappear. What Duncan seems to be looking for is a justification for the transfers, not an explanation.

WJS

----- Original Message -----
From: Duncan Sheehan
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [RDG:] 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.