NZ case (Lionel Smith, 20 Jul 2004)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Lionel Smith
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:53:59 -0400
Re:	NZ case

Decided just over a year ago, but only just reported, I don't think there has been any mention yet of Saunders & Co (a firm) v Hague, [2004] 2 NZLR 475. It is similar to Lipkin Gorman but LG is distinguished and the case is decided as one of mistake. There is an interesting discussion of change of position, adopting passages from Grantham and Rickett, Enrichment and Restitution in New Zealand (2000). Saunders is available on Lexis.

Lionel

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.