Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Lionel Smith |
| Date: |
Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:04 |
| Re: |
The doctrine of unjust in Richmond |
RDG member John Swan recently forwarded to me the following quotation from Madam Justice Southin of the British Columbia Court of Appeal:
In 434438 B.C. Ltd. v. R.S.& D. Contracting Ltd. (2002), 171 B.C.A.C 111, [2002] B.C.J. No. 1538 (B.C.C.A.), Southin J.A., giving the reasons for judgment of the court referred, in ¶ 35, to Estok v. Heguy (1963), 40 D.L.R. (2d) 88, 43 W.W.R. 167, and said: "I cannot forebear mentioning that, when this case was noted in The Advocate, it bore the cut line, not 'Unjust Enrichment', but 'Unjust in Richmond'." This seemed too good to be true ... but in fact it is true, and I attach the summary of Estok v. Heguy from the Advocate to prove it. It was an early case of liability for improvements made to land in anticipation of a contract that did not materialize. Presumably this error arose in the days of dictation ... for our overseas friends, Richmond is a city in British Columbia, adjacent to Vancouver (as is New Westminster, where the trial took place).
Lionel
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
