Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Dear Jason

I'm not sure I think that absence of basis reasoning would allow us to avoid either of the difficulties I describe under headings 2a and 2b. So far as 2a is concerned, where C pays correctly believing that a rule of law requires him to do so, and the rule is subsequently overturned by judicial decision, would we not still be faced with the question whether the basis for C's payment should be deemed by application of a legal fiction not to have existed at the time when the payment was made? And so far as 2b is concerned, would we not still be faced with the problem that the payment made by DMG was due under a valid statutory section?

Best wishes
Charles

At 11:01 30/10/2006 -0500, Jason Neyers wrote:

Dear Charles:

The difficulties you have with the mistake analysis show why absence of basis is the simplest most coherent view of unjust enrichment. Although the province of unjust enrichment would be smaller under this view, what was covered would hold together better.