Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Nobody did. Apologies for a confusing post. I mentioned 3Com v. Zorin because the CA didn't see fit to suggest in para 57 that the only reason why proof of actual loss wasn't required was that the cause of action was deceit. That distinction might be implicit in "It was not necessary, in the circumstances of this case, to introduce evidence of a specific alternative third party buyer" but the statement was followed by this sentence which seems to be the explanation for why it was not necessary: "The appellants’ submission ignores the conceptual basis of tort law, which is restitutionary." That justification would apply equally to negligence. However, to be fair, the case wasn't negligence and there's no need to read the case as extending to negligence.

David

From: Lionel Smith, Prof.
Sent: February 26, 2007 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [RDG] ODG: Waiver of tort

I’m confused; did anyone say there can’t be a gain-based claim in tort (as opposed to arguments about whether specific torts (especially negligence) will support it)?