Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

I post this on behalf of Hector MacQueen. I should say that I am aware of the sense of 'natural obligation' which he describes, which also exists in the civil law of Quebec, and was very familiar to common lawyers at least in the days of Lord Mansfield and Sir William Evans. I meant to suggest that as it relates to proof of undue influence, there may be no real difference between that idea and some of the formulations which common law courts have used. The words capture an underlying factual idea, which can issue in more than one legal consequence.

Lionel

Dear Lionel

Apologies if I am coming into the middle of something here (I hadn't been following this thread until I saw your contribution), but as I understand "natural obligation", it means an obligation unenforceable as such in law but which nonetheless may have certain secondary effects in the law of obligations, e.g. if money is paid under a natural obligation such as a prescribed debt, it is not reclaimable as an unjustified enrichment; and it can be used in set-off. The root is Roman law and the concept is very familiar in continental European systems.

Best wishes

Hector

-----Original Message-----
From: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues On Behalf Of Lionel Smith
Sent: 04 April 2004 16:16
Subject: Re: [RDG:] Undue Influence & Natural Obligations

Does "natural obligation" mean that "the transaction does not call for an explanation"? And perhaps that it does not reveal "manifest disadvantage"?