-- Received: (qmail 1012 invoked from network); 7 Jul 1997 11:02:53 -0000 Received: from oxmail4.ox.ac.uk (163.1.2.33) by jess.oucs.ox.ac.uk with SMTP; 7 Jul 1997 11:02:53 -0000 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk by oxmail4 with SMTP (PP) with ESMTP; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 12:02:46 +0100 Received: from [192.76.27.45] (max39.public.ox.ac.uk [192.76.27.39]) by sable.ox.ac.uk (1.2/8.8.3) with SMTP id MAA13383 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 12:02:40 +0100 (BST) X-Sender: lawf0014@sable.ox.ac.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 12:03:23 +0000 To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: lionel.smith@Law.oxford.ac.uk (Lionel Smith) Subject: new article Greetings all, Recently published in [1997] 3 Web JCLI is a new article by list member Steve Hedley, entitled "Ten questions for 'unjust enrichment' theorists." The journal can be found at http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/ and you can go directly to Steve's article at http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/1997/issue3/hedley3a.html Lionel Received: (qmail 18344 invoked from network); 29 Jul 1997 09:21:51 -0000 Received: from dee.cliffordchance.com (HELO cliffordchance.com) (@194.133.109.2) by jess.oucs.ox.ac.uk with SMTP; 29 Jul 1997 09:21:51 -0000 Received: from lon-msg-99.cliffordchance.com ([10.54.2.14]) by dee.cliffordchance.com with ESMTP id <17961>; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:22:36 +0100 Received: by LON-MSG-99 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <3Q7NJC4K>; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:21:55 +0100 From: "Dickinson, Andrew" To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk Subject: Satnam Investments v. Dunlop Heywood & Co. Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:26:00 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Message-Id: <97Jul29.102236bst.17961@dee.cliffordchance.com> The above decision of Chadwick J. is certainly worthy of note (and will no doubt attract much comment). In terms of fact and result, it appears to be similar to the Canadian LAC Minerals decision. The plaintiff appointed the first defendant as its agent for the purposes of acquiring part of a development site. It acquired part of that site together with an option over two other sites. In 1995, receivers were appointed in respect of the plaintiff following a cashflow crisis. After that event, the second defendant, a director of the first defendant, wrote to the third defendant, a property company, to inform it of the proposed development. The third defendant (knowing of the breach of duty) acquired the two sites over which the plaintiff had an option. The plaintiff sought relief against the third defendant on the ground that it held those sites on constructive trust and against the first and second defendants for breach of fiduciary duty. Chadwick J held that it the third defendant held the sites on constructive trust for the plaintiff and should convey those properties subject to payment by the plaintiff of the third defendant's costs of acquisition. It appears that unjust enrichment reasoning was applied and that the imposition of a constructive trust was described as a remedy. It is not clear from the summary that I have whether the judge was persuaded by the reasoning in LAC or by that of the Privy Council in AG -v- Reid (although the effect of that reasoning was to impose an "institutional" constructive trust). In any case, the much heralded coming of the remedial constructive trust may have arrived in English law. The first and second defendants were ordered to pay equitable compensation. AD Received: (qmail 18786 invoked from network); 29 Jul 1997 09:40:59 -0000 Received: from oxmail4.ox.ac.uk (163.1.2.33) by jess.oucs.ox.ac.uk with SMTP; 29 Jul 1997 09:40:59 -0000 Received: from ermine.ox.ac.uk by oxmail4 with SMTP (PP) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:40:45 +0100 Received: from platform.asc.ox.ac.uk (platform.asc.ox.ac.uk [163.1.128.124]) by ermine.ox.ac.uk (1.1/8.8.3) with SMTP id KAA31639 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:40:45 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970729093755.0084c038@ermine.ox.ac.uk> X-Sender: birks@ermine.ox.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:37:55 +0100 To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: "Peter B. H. Birks" Subject: Re: restitution Satnam Investments v. Dunlop Heywood & Co. VERY VERY INTERESTING. THANK YOU. HAVE YOU GOT ACCESS TO A TRANSCRIPT? At 09:26 29/07/97 +0100, you wrote: > The above decision of Chadwick J. is certainly worthy of note (and > will no doubt attract much comment). In terms of fact and result, >it > appears to be similar to the Canadian LAC Minerals decision. > > The plaintiff appointed the first defendant as its agent for the > purposes of acquiring part of a development site. It acquired part >of > that site together with an option over two other sites. In 1995, > receivers were appointed in respect of the plaintiff following a > cashflow crisis. After that event, the second defendant, a director >of > the first defendant, wrote to the third defendant, a property >company, > to inform it of the proposed development. The third defendant >(knowing > of the breach of duty) acquired the two sites over which the >plaintiff > had an option. The plaintiff sought relief against the third >defendant > on the ground that it held those sites on constructive trust and > against the first and second defendants for breach of fiduciary >duty. > > Chadwick J held that it the third defendant held the sites on > constructive trust for the plaintiff and should convey those > properties subject to payment by the plaintiff of the third > defendant's costs of acquisition. It appears that unjust enrichment > > reasoning was applied and that the imposition of a constructive >trust > was described as a remedy. It is not clear from the summary that I > have whether the judge was persuaded by the reasoning in LAC or by > that of the Privy Council in AG -v- Reid (although the effect of >that > reasoning was to impose an "institutional" constructive trust). In >any > case, the much heralded coming of the remedial constructive trust >may > have arrived in English law. > > The first and second defendants were ordered to pay equitable > compensation. > > AD > > Peter Birks Regius Professor of Civil Law University of Oxford Received: (qmail 22468 invoked from network); 29 Jul 1997 14:51:02 -0000 Received: from julian.uwo.ca (129.100.2.12) by jess.oucs.ox.ac.uk with SMTP; 29 Jul 1997 14:51:02 -0000 Received: from lawmxm.law.uwo.ca by julian.uwo.ca with SMTP id KAA00864; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:50:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <33DE2DA6.1F81@julian.uwo.ca> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:51:34 -0700 From: Mitchell McInnes Organization: University of Western Ontario X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk Subject: Burrows and McKendrick References: <97Jul29.102236bst.17961@dee.cliffordchance.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I seem to have a vague recollection that Burrows & McKendrick recently published a casebook on restitution, but I can't find mention of it anywhere on the web. Did I just imagine that such a book exists? If not, can anyone tell me where I might obtain a copy? Many thanks, Mitchell McInnes Faculty of Law University of Western Ontario London, Ontario Canada, N6A 3K7 Received: (qmail 24408 invoked from network); 29 Jul 1997 16:17:22 -0000 Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (137.222.10.51) by jess.oucs.ox.ac.uk with SMTP; 29 Jul 1997 16:17:22 -0000 Received: from mail.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:14:19 +0100 Received: from law-brno.law.bris.ac.uk (brno.law.bris.ac.uk [137.222.84.104]) by mail.bris.ac.uk (8.8.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA19988 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:12:48 +0100 (BST) From: Gerard McMeel Sender: Gerard.McMeel@bristol.ac.uk Reply-To: gerard.mcmeel@bristol.ac.uk To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk Subject: Re: restitution Burrows and McKendrick In-Reply-To: <33DE2DA6.1F81@julian.uwo.ca> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:13:29 +0100 (British Summer Time) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1 Build (3) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:51:34 -0700 Mitchell McInnes wrote: > I seem to have a vague recollection that Burrows & McKendrick recently published a > casebook on restitution, but I can't find mention of it anywhere on the web. Did I just > imagine that such a book exists? If not, can anyone tell me where I might obtain a copy? > > Many thanks, > > Mitchell McInnes > > Faculty of Law > University of Western Ontario > London, Ontario > Canada, N6A 3K7 I share your curiosity. I have just phoned Hammick's Legal Bookshop who have informed me that it is now expected to be published in September 1997. Gerard ---------------------- Gerard McMeel gerard.mcmeel@bristol.ac.uk Received: (qmail 26979 invoked from network); 29 Jul 1997 19:29:17 -0000 Received: from ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk (cusexim@131.111.8.6) by jess.oucs.ox.ac.uk with SMTP; 29 Jul 1997 19:29:17 -0000 Received: from swh10.christs.cam.ac.uk [131.111.219.51] by ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.653 #1) id 0wtHxL-0007QC-00; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 20:29:15 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970729202851.007ae1e0@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> X-Sender: swh10@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 20:28:51 +0100 To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: Steve Hedley Subject: Re: restitution Burrows and McKendrick In-Reply-To: <33DE2DA6.1F81@julian.uwo.ca> References: <97Jul29.102236bst.17961@dee.cliffordchance.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 10:51 29/07/97 -0700, you wrote: >I seem to have a vague recollection that Burrows & McKendrick recently published a=20 >casebook on restitution, but I can't find mention of it anywhere on the web. Did I just=20 >imagine that such a book exists? If not, can anyone tell me where I might obtain a copy? > >Many thanks, > >Mitchell McInnes > It's late, I think. This is from OUP's web site : Title: Cases and Materials on the Law of Restitution By Andrew Burrows and Ewan McKendrick. 900pp, 234=D7156=20 Published 1997=20 Hardback, 0-19-876290-9=20 UK Price: =A355.00=20 Restitution is one of the most hotly debated and topical areas of the common= =20 law. Written by two leading commentators on the subject, this book of cases= =20 and materials contains extracts from the leading cases, predominantly from the=20 UK and the Commonwealth. There are also extracts from the writings of some= =20 of the world's leading academic authorities on restitution law. These materials=20 are supported by comments and notes written by the editors and there are=20 also questions and notes on further reading. Clearly, the components of this= =20 book form a thorough exploration of the law of restitution and as such will be=20 essential reading for all students of the law in this area. The layout of the book=20 offers students and teachers the chance to learn the subject through= studying=20 the cases and extracts from articles published in scholarly journals. This= is=20 supported by the authors' expert commentary and there are also quotations=20 and notes on further reading.=20 Contents:=20 1 Unjust Enrichment 2 The Essential Ingredients of a Restitutionary= Claim 3 Mistake 4 Ignorance 5 Failure of Consideration 6 Illegitimate Pressure 7 Undue Influence and Exploitation of Weakness 8 Legal Compulsion: Compulsory Discharge of Another's Debt 9 Necessity 10 Illegality as a Ground for Restitution 11 Incapacity as a Ground for Restitution 12 Ultra Vires Demands by Public Authorities 13 Restitution for Wrongs 14 Tracing and Proprietary Restitution 15 Defences Paperback, 0-19-876291-7=20 UK Price: =A327.50=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE telephone and answering machine : (01223) 334931 e-mail : steve.hedley@law.cam.ac.uk messages : (01223) 334900 fax : (01223) 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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D