Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:30:31 +0100 Reply-To: Joshua Getzler Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Joshua Getzler Subject: RDG: fraud, dishonesty, wilful default Comments: To: Charles Mitchell MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A chaser to Charles' latest contribution, for those of us not shivering on a wet English beach: There is a new case (5 July 2002) exploring the dishonesty element in breach of trust, Woodland-Ferrari v UCL Group Retirement Benefits Scheme [2002] 3 All ER 670; EWHC 1354 (ChD) per Ferris J. The case concerns the continuing liability of a discharged bankrupt for fraudulent breaches of trust under s 281(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986. Ferris J traverses 19th and 20th century authorities and attempts to reconcile the morass of judicial experimentation from Re Vickery through to Armitage v Nurse, Walker v Stones and Twinsectra. The 'dishonesty' element wins out against an amorphous 'unconscionability' standard in finding 'fraud'; but this dishonesty standard is stated emphatically not to be subjective. Interestingly, 'wilful default' is held to be a narrower category than 'fraudulent breach of trust'. Will Law Commission-led legislation finally be necessary to resolve this debate over the nature of fraud in breach of trust? Though it is hardly to be hoped that legislative drafters will do better than judges. Joshua Getzler St Hugh's College, Oxford ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:59:45 +1000 Reply-To: John Bond Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: John Bond Subject: The mental element in relation to accessory liability. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Members may wish to note a recent examination of the rule in Barnes v Addy in Tara Shire Council v Garner & Ors [2002] QCA 232, a decision of the Court of Appeal in Queensland. X sold a piece of land to Y and received payment of the purchase price. X subsequently sold the piece of land to Z. Z acquired its interest in the land with knowledge that the land had been sold to Y. Z became registered proprietor of the land. Y sought a declaration that Z held the subject land on a constructive trust for Y and an order that it execute such trust together with interest and costs. The question before the Court was whether Y's pleading disclosed an arguable cause of action. This turned on whether Z had indefeasible title of the land in accordance with s 184 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) or whether Z's knowledge was arguably sufficient to give rise to an "equity" within the meaning of the exception to indefeasibility contained in s 185(1)(a) of the Land Title Act. The Court of Appeal concluded that Y's cause of action was arguable. For Australian readers the case is primarily of interest because of its examination of the question whether the knowledge of the registered proprietor of land was sufficient to give rise to an "equity" within the meaning of the statutory exception to statutory indefeasibility. In this regard, Atkinson J (with whom McMurdo P agreed) concluded that at least arguably it was sufficient. Davies JA was strongly to the contrary view. Although accessory liability was not directly in issue, Atkinson J made a number of observations about the requisite mental element of both limbs of Barnes v Addy. Davies JA did not examine the issue. JOHN BOND SC Phone: (07) 3221 4766 Fax: (07) 3221 2806 E-mail: bondj@qldbar.asn.au ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:29:04 +0100 Reply-To: Steve Hedley Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Steve Hedley Subject: No need for condictio sagittarii after all, thank goodness Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Those who have been on this list for a while (and so remember the debate which started on 22 Nov 1999, www.law.cam.ac.uk/restitution/rdg/9911003.htm) will be delighted to hear that Mr Archer's restitutionary difficulties have been resolved without the need for litigation.=20 This is fortunate, as we are now no nearer than we were in 1999 to stating what the 'unjust' factor in the case is. Like the factor in the 'swaps' cases, it remains a mystery wrapped inside an enigma.=20 Whether this inability of the 'unjust factors' to align intelligibly with the real world should be blamed on the weaknesses of the factors, or on the perversity of the world itself, remains controversial.=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ARCHER 'TO PAY' SUED NEWSPAPERS =A33m=20 Sunday, 4 August, 2002, 05:53 GMT 06:53 =20 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2171185.stm=20 Jeffrey Archer has reportedly agreed to pay more than =A33m to two newspaper= s he successfully sued in a libel case that led to him being jailed for perjury.=20 The Star and News of the World had accused the multi-millionaire novelist and Tory peer of paying Monica Coghlan =A370 for sex.=20 But Archer has since been jailed for four years for lying during the 1987 libel trial. =20 And the former Tory party deputy has now instructed his lawyers to return damages and costs to the newspapers with substantial interest, according to The Sunday Telegraph.=20 The newspaper says Archer's solicitors, Mishcon de Reya, are preparing to pay The Star about =A32.8m. =20 He was awarded then-record damages of =A3500,000 from the paper in 1987. =20 But an hour after the disgraced peer was jailed, owners Express Newspapers served him a writ alleging fraud to recoup the money along with costs, interest and the legal costs of their recovery. =20 Archer has also returned =A350,000 damages, =A370,000 costs and =A3242,000 interest to the News of the World, The Sunday Telegraph says.=20 BOOK DEAL =20 Legal manager Tom Crone reportedly told the paper he "has repaid us all the money". =20 Two weeks ago Archer's attempt to challenge his conviction and sentence failed. =20 Believed to be worth up to =A360m, he has signed a =A311m deal with HarperCollins for the global rights to his next three novels and a collection of short stories, according to The Sunday Telegraph. =20 But, it adds, he is currently earning =A38.40 a week as a medical orderly at North Sea Camp prison in Lincolnshire. =20 Steve Hedley =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20 FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE e-mail : steve.hedley@law.cam.ac.uk ansaphone : +44 1223 334931 www.stevehedley.com fax : +44 1223 334967 Christ's College Cambridge CB2 3BU =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20 ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:44:01 +0100 Reply-To: Michael Rush Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Michael Rush Subject: Free Acceptance as an Unjust Factor MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0120_01C23D4F.527DEBD0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0120_01C23D4F.527DEBD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable While reading the recent Victorian Supreme Court case of Andrew Shelton = & Co Pty Ltd v. Alpha Healthcare Ltd, I came across an eye-catching = statement from Warren J: "...in Australia it seems at this time that free acceptance is a = recognised restitutionary ground".=20 Much of Warren J's judgment is devoted to findings of fact. The = plaintiff (Shelton), contended that the defendant company was obliged to = remunerate him for advisory work he had undertaken in facilitating a $30 = million transaction, and which the defendant benefited from. = Complications arose because: 1. Shelton and the defendant never entered into a formal contract for = services; and 2. the majority of Shelton's work had not be done for the defendant, but = for a related company which was not a party to the final transaction. Warren J upheld Shelton's claim based on unjust enrichment. The unjust = factor used to support Shelton's argument, was that of free acceptance. While Shelton also initially claimed in contract, estoppel, breach of = confidence and quantum meruit [sic], these were either abandoned or = dismissed. Counsel appears not to have made an argument based on failure = of consideration.=20 Only passing reference is made to the debate as to whether free = acceptance should found a claim for restitution (in particular the = writing of Andrew Burrows). Instead, emphasis is placed on the views of = Goff & Jones and Michael Bryan, and interpretations of the Australian = cases Pavey & Matthews v. Paul, Brenner and Angelopoulos. It is also interesting to the note that Gummow J's dicta regarding the = place of restitution in Australia (see Roxborough v. Rothmans), seems = now to require the attention of first instance judges when reliance is = placed on unjust enrichment reasoning.=20 The case can be found at: = http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2002/248.html ________________________________ Michael Rush Magdalen College Oxford=20 OX1 4AU UNITED KINGDOM ________________________________ ------=_NextPart_000_0120_01C23D4F.527DEBD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
While reading the recent Victorian Supreme Court case of Andrew = Shelton=20 & Co Pty Ltd v. Alpha Healthcare Ltd, I came across an = eye-catching=20 statement from Warren J:
 
"...in Australia it seems at this time that free acceptance is a = recognised=20 restitutionary ground".
 
 
Much of Warren J's judgment is devoted to findings of fact. The = plaintiff=20 (Shelton), contended that the defendant company was obliged to = remunerate him=20 for advisory work he had undertaken in facilitating a $30 million=20 transaction, and which the defendant benefited from. Complications arose = because:
 
1. Shelton and the defendant never entered into a formal contract = for=20 services; and
2. the majority of Shelton's work had not be done for the = defendant, but=20 for a related company which was not a party to the final = transaction.
 
Warren J upheld Shelton's claim based on unjust enrichment. The = unjust=20 factor used to support Shelton's argument, was that of free = acceptance.
 
While Shelton also initially claimed in contract, estoppel, breach = of=20 confidence and quantum meruit [sic], these were either abandoned or = dismissed.=20 Counsel appears not to have made an argument based on failure of = consideration.=20
 
Only passing reference is made to the debate as to whether free = acceptance=20 should found a claim for restitution (in particular the writing of = Andrew=20 Burrows). Instead, emphasis is placed on the views of Goff & Jones = and=20 Michael Bryan, and interpretations of the Australian cases Pavey = &=20 Matthews v. Paul, Brenner and Angelopoulos.
 
It is also interesting to the note that Gummow J's dicta regarding = the=20 place of restitution in Australia (see Roxborough v. Rothmans), = seems=20 now to require the attention of first instance judges when reliance = is=20 placed on unjust enrichment reasoning.
 
 
The case can be found at: http://= www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2002/248.html
 
 
________________________________
 
Michael Rush
Magdalen College
Oxford
OX1 4AU
UNITED=20 KINGDOM
________________________________
------=_NextPart_000_0120_01C23D4F.527DEBD0-- ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 01:24:23 -0400 Reply-To: Lionel Smith Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Lionel Smith Subject: just enrichment? MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii From Emily Sherwin via Andrew Kull comes a very interesting item from yesterday's Times, at least the online version: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-376704,00.html Thief stole debit card and made bets on the ponies; winnings deposited directly to the victim's bank account! A bit like Jones v Jones but without any need for litigation. By the way I have also learned that Andrew has moved from Emory to Boston University. Atlanta's loss is Boston's gain. Lionel ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 14:31:48 +0800 Reply-To: CHONG_Chin_Chin@SUPCOURT.GOV.SG Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: CHONG_Chin_Chin@SUPCOURT.GOV.SG Subject: Chin Chin CHONG/SUPCOURT/SINGOV is out of the office. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I will be out of the office starting 08/08/2002 and will not return until 13/08/2002. ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:16:51 -0400 Reply-To: Lionel Smith Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Lionel Smith Subject: Epilogue to Roxborough: Cauvin v Philip Morris Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I forward this message on behalf of Christopher Archibald: > > List members may be interested to learn of the demise of an epilogue > > to Roxborough v Rothmans, the Australian case by which retailers of > > tobacco obtained restitution of unconstitutional excise duties paid to > > wholesalers. The retailers were successful notwithstanding that the > > payments to wholesalers had been funded by consumers. > > > > In Cauvin v Philip Morris [2002] NSWSC 736, a tobacco consumer (as a > > representative of a class of consumers) commenced proceedings in the > > New South Wales Supreme Court against various large tobacco > > wholesalers and a large supermarket chain (as representative of a > > class of retailers). > > > > Yesterday, Windeyer J held that the claim should be dismissed, except > > for leave to replead a claim in "unjust enrichment per se" between the > > named plaintiff and retailers (not as a class action): > > http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2002nswsc.nsf/66950614059df5 > > 23ca25673900081e8e/19a1a8b04ff04a4eca256c1c000af3a6?OpenDocument > > > > His Honour dismissed claims as follows: > > > > * claims pleaded as "money had and received", "failure of > > consideration" and "subrogation" against the wholesalers were > > dismissed because the result of Roxborough was that the wholesalers > > are liable to the retailers and can therefore no longer be enriched; > > * the same claims against the retailers were dismissed because > > claims were bound to fail since the amount of tax paid by the consumer > > could not be separately identified (retailers did not show any amount > > for tax as a separate item of the price charged to consumers), relying > > on Mason J in Royal Insurance and Learned Hand J in 123 East > > Fifty-Fourth Street; and > > * there were also claims for a trust of sorts and in > > unconscionability (within the meaning given by the Trade Practices Act > > 1974 (Cth)) which were given short shrift. > > > > However a separately pleaded claim in "unjust enrichment" against the > > retailers was not dimissed. His Honour said at [23-24]: > > > > "Generally speaking I consider it to be accepted that it is necessary > > to show a recognized category of unjustness. In other words unjust > > enrichment is not generally thought of as a cause of action "but a > > unifying legal concept which explains why the law recognizes in a > > variety of distinct category of cases an obligation on the part of the > > defendant to make fair and just restitution for a benefit derived at > > the expense of the plaintiff" (my underlining) Pavey & Matthews Pty > > Limited v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 per Deane J at 256. > > The question is whether this is so clear that the position is > > unarguable. I deal with this on the basis the claim is not within a > > recognized category of non-voluntary payments so that if recognized it > > will require recognition of a "general nominative principle of unjust > > enrichment" as explained by Gummow J in Winterton Constructions Pty > > Ltd v Hambros Australia Limited (1991) 101 ALR 363 at 374-5. In that > > action Gummow J refused to dismiss the cause of action based on unjust > > enrichment. While I think it unlikely such a claim could be > > maintained, I do not think it absolutely certain that the plaintiff, > > if she pleaded and proved the necessary facts of purchase of untaxed > > cigarettes, could not establish some claim to some part - albeit not > > capable of precise identification in a monetary sum - of the purchase > > price paid by her." > > > > However, the claim in "unjust enrichment" was not permitted to proceed > > as a class action (either by or against a class of parties). Where > > tobacco products sold during the relevant period included a mix of > > stock in respect of which the unconsitutional tax had and had not been > > paid to wholesalers, it was impossible to establish whether the > > product purchased by any particular consumer was tobacco upon which it > > was thought by the retailer that a tax was payable, so that in a > > general way the purchase price reflected the tax which was not paid. > > The plaintiff conceded that it would not be possible to prove that > > particular retailers (in the class of retailers) were enriched at the > > expense of particularly identifiable consumers. Accordingly, that > > claim was not permitted to proceed as a representative action. In all > > likelihood, however, it would seem that the same reasoning will lead > > the claim to founder even between named parties. > > > > Regards > > > > Christopher Archibald ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:00:13 +1200 Reply-To: Laura O'Gorman Sender: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues From: Laura O'Gorman Subject: Re: Unjust enrichment per se Comments: cc: Lionel Smith MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain In relation to the unjust enrichment point, a similar approach was taken by the New Zealand High Court in Bomac Laboratories Ltd v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd (2002) 7 NZBLC 103,627. That judgment related to protests to jurisdiction by foreign defendants in the context of alleged price-fixing of vitamins and vitamin products. One cause of action was "unjust enrichment". The defendants argued that unjust enrichment does not yet have the status of a discrete cause of action in New Zealand (para 132), and that the plaintiffs' claim did not fall within any traditionally recognised category of unjust factor (para 136). On this point Justice Harrison concluded as follows: "Based on this brief survey of what is a complex and uncertain area of the law, I am satisfied that on the facts already discussed Bomac has a good arguable case or there is a serious issue to be tried on its claim for restitution. I repeat my acknowledgement that the common law of New Zealand does not yet specifically recognise a cause of action for unjust enrichment of the type pleaded by Bomac. Nevertheless it would be wrong to deprive the company of the opportunity to argue for that proposition at trial where there is a respectable body of authority available to support this head of claim" (para 139). Regards Laura O'Gorman -----Original Message----- From: Lionel Smith [mailto:lionel.smith@MCGILL.CA] Sent: Friday, 23 August 2002 2:17 To: ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA Subject: [RDG:] Epilogue to Roxborough: Cauvin v Philip Morris I forward this message on behalf of Christopher Archibald: > > List members may be interested to learn of the demise of an epilogue > > to Roxborough v Rothmans, the Australian case by which retailers of > > tobacco obtained restitution of unconstitutional excise duties paid > > to wholesalers. The retailers were successful notwithstanding that > > the payments to wholesalers had been funded by consumers. > > > > In Cauvin v Philip Morris [2002] NSWSC 736, a tobacco consumer (as a > > representative of a class of consumers) commenced proceedings in the > > New South Wales Supreme Court against various large tobacco > > wholesalers and a large supermarket chain (as representative of a > > class of retailers). > > > > Yesterday, Windeyer J held that the claim should be dismissed, > > except for leave to replead a claim in "unjust enrichment per se" > > between the named plaintiff and retailers (not as a class action): > > http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2002nswsc.nsf/66950614059d > > f5 > > 23ca25673900081e8e/19a1a8b04ff04a4eca256c1c000af3a6?OpenDocument > > > > His Honour dismissed claims as follows: > > > > * claims pleaded as "money had and received", "failure of > > consideration" and "subrogation" against the wholesalers were > > dismissed because the result of Roxborough was that the wholesalers > > are liable to the retailers and can therefore no longer be enriched; > > * the same claims against the retailers were dismissed because > > claims were bound to fail since the amount of tax paid by the > > consumer could not be separately identified (retailers did not show > > any amount for tax as a separate item of the price charged to > > consumers), relying on Mason J in Royal Insurance and Learned Hand J > > in 123 East Fifty-Fourth Street; and > > * there were also claims for a trust of sorts and in > > unconscionability (within the meaning given by the Trade Practices > > Act 1974 (Cth)) which were given short shrift. > > > > However a separately pleaded claim in "unjust enrichment" against > > the retailers was not dimissed. His Honour said at [23-24]: > > > > "Generally speaking I consider it to be accepted that it is > > necessary to show a recognized category of unjustness. In other > > words unjust enrichment is not generally thought of as a cause of > > action "but a unifying legal concept which explains why the law > > recognizes in a variety of distinct category of cases an obligation > > on the part of the defendant to make fair and just restitution for a > > benefit derived at the expense of the plaintiff" (my underlining) > > Pavey & Matthews Pty Limited v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 per Deane J > > at 256. The question is whether this is so clear that the position > > is unarguable. I deal with this on the basis the claim is not within > > a recognized category of non-voluntary payments so that if > > recognized it will require recognition of a "general nominative > > principle of unjust enrichment" as explained by Gummow J in > > Winterton Constructions Pty Ltd v Hambros Australia Limited (1991) > > 101 ALR 363 at 374-5. In that action Gummow J refused to dismiss the > > cause of action based on unjust enrichment. While I think it > > unlikely such a claim could be maintained, I do not think it > > absolutely certain that the plaintiff, if she pleaded and proved the > > necessary facts of purchase of untaxed cigarettes, could not > > establish some claim to some part - albeit not capable of precise > > identification in a monetary sum - of the purchase price paid by > > her." > > > > However, the claim in "unjust enrichment" was not permitted to > > proceed as a class action (either by or against a class of parties). > > Where tobacco products sold during the relevant period included a > > mix of stock in respect of which the unconsitutional tax had and had > > not been paid to wholesalers, it was impossible to establish whether > > the product purchased by any particular consumer was tobacco upon > > which it was thought by the retailer that a tax was payable, so that > > in a general way the purchase price reflected the tax which was not > > paid. The plaintiff conceded that it would not be possible to prove > > that particular retailers (in the class of retailers) were enriched > > at the expense of particularly identifiable consumers. Accordingly, > > that claim was not permitted to proceed as a representative action. > > In all likelihood, however, it would seem that the same reasoning > > will lead the claim to founder even between named parties. > > > > Regards > > > > Christopher Archibald ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email . ____________________________________________________________________ This message and any attachments may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to . To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, tel. (+1) 514 398 6635,email .