-- >From eusl07@srv0.law.ed.ac.uk Tue Aug 10 16:31:20 1999 Received: from haymarket.ed.ac.uk ([129.215.128.53]) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 11EDs0-0007Ju-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 16:31:20 +0100 Received: from srv0.law.ed.ac.uk (srv0.law.ed.ac.uk [129.215.244.1]) by haymarket.ed.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA03016 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 16:30:52 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199908101530.QAA03016@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> Received: from LAW-SRV0/SpoolDir by srv0.law.ed.ac.uk (Mercury 1.43); 10 Aug 99 16:30:45 +0000 Received: from SpoolDir by LAW-SRV0 (Mercury 1.43); 10 Aug 99 16:30:35 +0000 From: "Hector MacQueen" To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 16:30:27 +0000 Subject: Payments under Protest Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) One of my Masters students has raised a question about English law which as a humble Scot I find myself unable to answer. It is a quite interesting practical sort of restitution question. If anyone can suggest an answer, I'd be pleased to hear it. Hector MacQueen ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: "Babette EHMANN" <9811549@HARRIS.SMS.ED.AC.UK> Organization: Student Mail Service To: eusl07@srv0.law.ed.ac.uk Date sent: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:51:39 +0000 Subject: Disseration "Payments under Protest - A Case for Restitution?" Priority: normal Dear Prof.MacQueen, I have a question concerning my dissertation "Payments under Protest - A case for Restitution?". While searching for cases which show that protest could be a significant factor in allowing restitution I came across the case of Sanders v. Isaacs [1971] 1 All ER 755. The case deals with the question of when the client's application for taxation of a solicitor's bill should be allowed if the bill has already been paid. (now s.70 of Solicitors Act 1974). Express reservation of the right of taxation is seen there as a highly important factor in establishing the required "special circumstances". What I am not clear about is, what excactly happens after taxation? If the taxation established that the bill was to high, can the client automatically claim restitution of the money or does he have to show that there was some unjust factor according to general restitutionary principles? I have looked in Cordery's Law relating to Solicitors and Halsbury's Law of England but could not find any reference to what happens after the taxation of the bill. I would be very grateful if you had any suggestions on this, maybe were I could find more information? Thank's a lot for your help. Babette Hector.MacQueen@ed.ac.uk Professor of Private Law University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH8 9YL UK Tel (UK)-0131-650-2060/4633 Fax (UK)-0131-662-4902 Editor Edinburgh Law Review >From scott.dickson@ed.ac.uk Tue Aug 10 21:53:24 1999 Received: from haymarket.ed.ac.uk ([129.215.128.53]) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 11EItg-0008Fj-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 21:53:24 +0100 Received: from [129.215.38.131] (dialup-131.publab.ed.ac.uk [129.215.38.131]) by haymarket.ed.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA26414; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 21:52:55 +0100 (BST) X-Sender: sfd@holyrood.ed.ac.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 21:50:24 +0100 To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: Scott F Dickson Subject: Payments under protest Cc: Hector MacQueen This is a brief response to Hector's query. I am not completely convinced that party-agent accounts are such a great example. I assume that your student is compiling examples of transactions where protest (or just plain qualification) can eventually lead to restitution. For the record, there are similar provisions in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (c 46), s 39A. It is a bad example because the motivation for a solicitor making a refund is not the general law on restitution (or even an agreement to repay) but rather the fact that it will be professional misconduct to retain an excessive fee (that is, one which exceeds a taxed amount). In the Scottish provisions, a solicitor can be suspended from practice until they comply with certain requirements - one of which is, not surprisingly, repayment of the excess amount (s 39A(4)(b)). A statutory right to restitution? In the wider sense, yes. If the solicitor chooses to commit professional suicide and retain the excess, the sum could be recovered on the usual principles of unjust enrichment. We could ignore the statutory provisions and take two further examples. (A) The client pays the account and qualifies the payment (call it a protest if you like) by saying that they reserve the right to submit the account to the auditor of court and they also reserve the right to claim back any overpayment. The solicitor agrees. The account is taxed lower and the client claims a refund. This sounds like a contract claim to me, at least in Scots law. (B) The client pays and qualifies the payment as before. The solicitor does not expressly agree to the qualification. This may still be a contract claim; alternatively the cause of action may be in unjust enrichment. On the wider issue of protest, I cannot see that a payment made under protest is more susceptible to restitution because of the mere fact of protest. Many payments are made grudgingly, many under protest. The formal nature of a protest is not, in my view, particularly strong. It is like saying that all pursuers/plaintiffs should be entitled to succeed with their litigation merely because they are angry or merely because they have gone to the bother of raising proceedings in the first place. You might say that this kind of payment is actually a conditional payment - *I am paying you this sum; but if it transpires that I am not liable to pay it to you I reserve the right to claim it back*. The law, however, already protects you - by the obligation, ex lege, to make restitution for payments which are undue. That is what the law on restitution is all about - it protects you in certain circumstances, without the need to set up a consensual framework before making a payment. In the same way, the law of delict/tort also operates *on the fly* to protect you - there is no need for you to get the agreement of your fellow footballers in the changing room before a game that if they negligently (or intentionally) cause you injury during the game they will compensate you. Like protests, this sort of behaviour is pretty inefficient. It may, however, be useful to point out that a protest may be an indicator of the existence of something else (for example: mistake, compulsion, inequality, or some other (uncategorised) sort of apprehension as to the liability to pay (as in Woolwich v IRC)). Protest by itself should not be added to the list of unjust factors just yet. I hope that this helps. Scott Solicitor, Glasgow Office: 0141 248 2484 (t) 0141 332 5355 (f) scott.dickson@ed.ac.uk >From lionel.smith@law.oxford.ac.uk Wed Aug 11 09:16:34 1999 Received: from oxmail4.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.33] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 11ETYo-0000pd-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:16:34 +0100 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.4]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 11ETYM-0004BY-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:16:06 +0100 Received: from fellow22.sthughs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.228.82]) by sable.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ETYM-0002Ow-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:16:06 +0100 X-Sender: lawf0014@sable.ox.ac.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:15:56 +0100 To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: Lionel Smith approved: eregion From: Scott F Dickson Subject: Payments under protest This is a brief response to Hector's query. I am not completely convinced that party-agent accounts are such a great example. I assume that your student is compiling examples of transactions where protest (or just plain qualification) can eventually lead to restitution. For the record, there are similar provisions in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (c 46), s 39A. It is a bad example because the motivation for a solicitor making a refund is not the general law on restitution (or even an agreement to repay) but rather the fact that it will be professional misconduct to retain an excessive fee (that is, one which exceeds a taxed amount). In the Scottish provisions, a solicitor can be suspended from practice until they comply with certain requirements - one of which is, not surprisingly, repayment of the excess amount (s 39A(4)(b)). A statutory right to restitution? In the wider sense, yes. If the solicitor chooses to commit professional suicide and retain the excess, the sum could be recovered on the usual principles of unjust enrichment. We could ignore the statutory provisions and take two further examples. (A) The client pays the account and qualifies the payment (call it a protest if you like) by saying that they reserve the right to submit the account to the auditor of court and they also reserve the right to claim back any overpayment. The solicitor agrees. The account is taxed lower and the client claims a refund. This sounds like a contract claim to me, at least in Scots law. (B) The client pays and qualifies the payment as before. The solicitor does not expressly agree to the qualification. This may still be a contract claim; alternatively the cause of action may be in unjust enrichment. On the wider issue of protest, I cannot see that a payment made under protest is more susceptible to restitution because of the mere fact of protest. Many payments are made grudgingly, many under protest. The formal nature of a protest is not, in my view, particularly strong. It is like saying that all pursuers/plaintiffs should be entitled to succeed with their litigation merely because they are angry or merely because they have gone to the bother of raising proceedings in the first place. You might say that this kind of payment is actually a conditional payment - *I am paying you this sum; but if it transpires that I am not liable to pay it to you I reserve the right to claim it back*. The law, however, already protects you - by the obligation, ex lege, to make restitution for payments which are undue. That is what the law on restitution is all about - it protects you in certain circumstances, without the need to set up a consensual framework before making a payment. In the same way, the law of delict/tort also operates *on the fly* to protect you - there is no need for you to get the agreement of your fellow footballers in the changing room before a game that if they negligently (or intentionally) cause you injury during the game they will compensate you. Like protests, this sort of behaviour is pretty inefficient. It may, however, be useful to point out that a protest may be an indicator of the existence of something else (for example: mistake, compulsion, inequality, or some other (uncategorised) sort of apprehension as to the liability to pay (as in Woolwich v IRC)). Protest by itself should not be added to the list of unjust factors just yet. I hope that this helps. Scott Solicitor, Glasgow Office: 0141 248 2484 (t) 0141 332 5355 (f) scott.dickson@ed.ac.uk >From robert.stevens@lady-margaret-hall.oxford.ac.uk Wed Aug 11 09:43:51 1999 Received: from oxmail1.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.1] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 11ETzD-0000xl-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:43:51 +0100 Received: from ermine.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.13]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 11ETyl-0003Mz-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:43:23 +0100 Received: from pc06.lmh.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.138.106]) by ermine.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ETyl-0003DM-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:43:23 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01bee3d5$9ff62340$6a8a01a3@lmh.ox.ac.uk> From: "Robert Stevens" To: Subject: Change of Position Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:43:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In Amoco v TGTL the Court of Appeal refused to allow the defence of change of position to be invoked. The CATS parties built a pipeline for gas. Before the pipeline had been built they entered into an agreement with TGTL by which TGTL reserved part of the capacity of the pipeline for themselves. TGTL were obliged to pay in instalments for the capacity reserved from the commencement date, April Fool's day 1993, regardless of whether they used the pipe. The price of gas fell sharply in 1994. TGTL wanted to get out of the deal. TGTL started paying from 1 April 1993 but stopped at the end of September 1994 arguing that the date for commencement had not begun. They argued that the pipeline was not ready for use and that no monies were consequently due. Before Langley J. this argument was rejected but the CA allowed TGTL's appeal and ordered CATS to repay the money paid under mistake. CATS argued change of position. If they had known that the pipeline was not ready or if TGTL had refused to pay the instalments they would have quickly insured that the pipeline was ready so that payments became payable. Tuckey L.J. rejected the change of position defence as "the change of position must relate to the receipt of money" and that the CATS parties had merely "mistakenly believed that they had complied with the contract when they had not." Comments anyone? >From Andrew.Dickinson@cliffordchance.com Wed Aug 11 10:05:10 1999 Received: from deetwo.cliffordchance.com ([193.129.243.245] helo=cliffordchance.com) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 11EUJq-00013Q-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:05:10 +0100 Received: from lon-msg-400.cliffordchance.com ([10.54.2.79]) by deetwo.cliffordchance.com with ESMTP id <20472>; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:02:33 +0000 Received: from lon-msg-400.cliffordchance.com (unverified) by lon-msg-400.cliffordchance.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:01:40 +0100 Received: by LON-MSG-400 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:01:40 +0100 Message-Id: <77017288B941D2118B770000F6AA1BD1013067E1@LON-MSG-14> From: Andrew.Dickinson@cliffordchance.com To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk Subject: RE: Change of Position Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:07:23 +0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) This seems right (at least to me). CATS' defence would seem to be no stronger than the "honest receipt" defence rejected in KB -v- Lincoln. In effect, CATS was saying that "If you TGTL had investigated and drawn our attention to the fact that we had not complied with the condition for your payment, we would have made sure that our non-compliance was corrected." Although the summary below does not give details of the terms of the contract, I presume that there was no obligation on TGTL to do this and, presumably, CATS was in a better position to ascertain its completeness - indeed, somebody (CATS' agent?) must have been aware that it was not ready. In the circumstances, CATS should be regarded has bearing the risk that the pipeline was not ready and the monies repayable. Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Stevens [SMTP:robert.stevens@lady-margaret-hall.oxford.ac.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 9:44 AM > To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk > Subject: RDG: Change of Position > > In Amoco v TGTL the Court of Appeal refused to allow the defence of change > of position to be invoked. The CATS parties built a pipeline for > gas. Before the pipeline had been built they entered into an agreement > with > TGTL by which TGTL reserved part of the capacity of the pipeline for > themselves. TGTL were obliged to pay in instalments for the capacity > reserved from the > commencement date, April Fool's day 1993, regardless of whether they used > the pipe. > The price of gas fell sharply in 1994. TGTL wanted to get out of the deal. > TGTL started paying from 1 April 1993 but stopped at the end of September > 1994 > arguing that the date for commencement had not begun. They argued that the > pipeline was not ready for use and that no monies were consequently due. > Before Langley J. this argument was rejected but the CA allowed TGTL's > appeal and ordered CATS to repay the money paid under mistake. > CATS argued change of position. If they had known that the pipeline was > not > ready or if TGTL had refused to pay the instalments they would have > quickly > insured that the pipeline was ready so that payments became payable. > > Tuckey L.J. rejected the change of position defence as "the change of > position must relate to the receipt of money" and that the CATS parties > had > merely "mistakenly believed that they had complied with the contract when > they had not." > > Comments anyone? > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > ______ > 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 restitution" in the body of a > message to . To unsubscribe, send > "unsubscribe > restitution" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, > send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith > of > St. Hugh's College, Oxford, U.K., tel. (0)1865 274 966, email > . *********************************************************************** The information in this email and in any attachments is confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). This information may be subject to legal professional or other privilege or may otherwise be protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. It must not be disclosed to any person without our authority. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are not authorised to and must not disclose, copy, distribute, or retain this message or any part of it. >From gordon.goldberg@buckingham.ac.uk Sun Aug 15 18:45:33 1999 Received: from gateway.buckingham.ac.uk ([194.83.163.1]) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 11G4Ld-0006o3-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 18:45:33 +0100 Received: from Law999.buckingham.ac.uk ([194.83.163.235]) by gateway.buckingham.ac.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA04742; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 18:47:20 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199908151747.SAA04742@gateway.buckingham.ac.uk> From: "Gordon Goldberg" To: "Hector MacQueen" Cc: Subject: Re: Payments under Protest Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 18:54:04 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Having spent elsewhere my days as a practising solicitor, I am not acquainted with the relevant English legislation. However, my impression is that Sanders v. Isaacs is in a line of cases, which includes Smith v. Sleap (1844) 12 M. & W. 585 and Wakefield v. Newbon (1844) 6 Q.B. 276, and that in Sanders the taxing master was to be asked to assess the quantum meruit. This happened in Smith v. Sleap. The assessment could otherwise have been made by the court, as happened in Wakefield v. Newbon. If my impression is correct then, as in both the earlier cases, the solicitors in Sanders v. Isaacs would in an action for money had and received be found liable to repay so much (if any) of the money paid under protest as exceeded the assessment. The reason for paying under protest is to exclude any finding (such as that in North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd v. Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd. [1979] Q.B. 705) that the payment is made pursuant to a compromise of the dispute or otherwise by consent; for recovery is possible in these circumstances only if the money has been paid under compulsion. The compulsion lies in the duty to mitigate one's damages. In other words, as I was taught as an articled clerk and never found to be questioned in practice, the Court would entertain no claim for substantial damages for the conversion of the documents by a plaintiff in Sanders' position, simply because payment under protest would have led to their immediate release. A close analogy is the decision of McCardie, J., in Payzu Ltd v. Saunders [1919] 2 K.B. 581. Of course, if (but only if) it had always been clear that there was no risk of suffering substantial loss through delay in obtaining the documents, Sanders should arguably have sued for their conversion in the ordinary way. On its facts, so far as my memory of them has been refreshed by the headnote, I believe that the previous paragraph contains a ground, alternative to that given by the House of Lords, for its decision in Woolwich Building Society v. I.R.C. [1993] A.C. 70. ---------- > From: Hector MacQueen > To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk > Subject: RDG: Payments under Protest > Date: 10 August 1999 17:30 > > One of my Masters students has raised a question about English > law which as a humble Scot I find myself unable to answer. It is a > quite interesting practical sort of restitution question. If anyone can > suggest an answer, I'd be pleased to hear it. > > Hector MacQueen > > ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- > From: "Babette EHMANN" <9811549@HARRIS.SMS.ED.AC.UK> > Organization: Student Mail Service > To: eusl07@srv0.law.ed.ac.uk > Date sent: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:51:39 +0000 > Subject: Disseration "Payments under Protest - A Case for Restitution?" > Priority: normal > > Dear Prof.MacQueen, > > I have a question concerning my dissertation "Payments under > Protest - A case for Restitution?". > > While searching for cases which show that protest could be a > significant factor in allowing restitution I came across the case of > Sanders v. Isaacs [1971] 1 All ER 755. The case deals with the > question of when the client's application for taxation of a solicitor's > bill should be allowed if the bill has already been paid. (now s.70 of > Solicitors Act 1974). Express reservation of the right of taxation is > seen there as a highly important factor in establishing the required > "special circumstances". > > What I am not clear about is, what excactly happens after > taxation? If the taxation established that the bill was to high, can > the client automatically claim restitution of the money or does he > have to show that there was some unjust factor according to > general restitutionary principles? > > I have looked in Cordery's Law relating to Solicitors and Halsbury's > Law of England but could not find any reference to what happens > after the taxation of the bill. I would be very grateful if you had any > suggestions on this, maybe were I could find more information? > > Thank's a lot for your help. > > Babette > > > Hector.MacQueen@ed.ac.uk > Professor of Private Law > University of Edinburgh > Edinburgh EH8 9YL > UK > Tel (UK)-0131-650-2060/4633 > Fax (UK)-0131-662-4902 > > Editor Edinburgh Law Review > > ____________________________________________________________________________ ____ > 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 restitution" in the body of a > message to . To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe > restitution" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, > send to . The list is run by Lionel Smith of > St. Hugh's College, Oxford, U.K., tel. (0)1865 274 966, email > . >From gordon.goldberg@buckingham.ac.uk Mon Aug 16 15:23:44 1999 Received: from gateway.buckingham.ac.uk ([194.83.163.1]) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 11GNfr-000173-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:23:44 +0100 Received: from Law999.buckingham.ac.uk ([194.83.163.235]) by gateway.buckingham.ac.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA26816; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:25:25 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199908161425.PAA26816@gateway.buckingham.ac.uk> From: "Gordon Goldberg" To: Cc: Subject: Re: RDG: Re: Payments under Protest Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:32:10 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am gratified, if I have been able to help. I myself should be grateful for the reassurance of your student or, indeed, of anyone else concerning Atkin, L.J.'s dictum in A..-G. v. United Wilts Dairies (1921) 37 T.L.R. 884 at 887 which, according to the headnote, was applied in Woolwich Building Society v. I.R.C. [1993] A.C. 70. I beg the pardon of those whom I irritate through my ignorance of some publication which has dealt with the point. In my respectful submission, neither payment under protest nor any other proof of compulsion can be necessary to establish the constitutional ground on which the latter case was decided; for the money in question had been extorted by the Crown under mere colour of Parliamentary authority; and its retention would have been simply illegal. After all, in no circumstances, can the subject retain money paid to him by the Crown without the actual authority of Parliament ( Auckland Harbour Board v. R. [1924] A.C. 318); and surely, in this field above all, the rule of law requires that there be but one rule for both the governed and the government? I believe this submission to be that made by Counsel in [1993] A.C. at 146B; but I cannot recall its being answered by any of the peers; and in a quick skim of the speeches this morning I found Auckland Harbour Board v. R. mentioned only by Lord Goff (ibid. at 177B). Apart from any general restitutionary theory and as at present advised, I believe this submission, if it has virtue at all, to apply only to the Crown and not to any other authority. ---------- From: Hector MacQueen To: gordon.goldberg@buck.ac.uk Subject: Re: RDG: Re: Payments under Pro--test Date: 16 August 1999 09:22 Dear Gordon Many thanks for your helpful note, which I have passed on to my student. Yours Hector Hector.MacQueen@ed.ac.uk Professor of Private Law University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH8 9YL UK Tel (UK)-0131-650-2060/4633 Fax (UK)-0131-662-4902 Editor Edinburgh Law Review >From ramit14@hotmail.com Thu Aug 19 19:42:26 1999 Received: from law-f101.hotmail.com ([209.185.131.164] helo=hotmail.com) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 11HX8s-000695-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:42:26 +0100 Received: (qmail 25170 invoked by uid 0); 19 Aug 1999 18:41:17 -0000 Message-ID: <19990819184117.25169.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 62.0.133.136 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 11:41:16 PDT X-Originating-IP: [62.0.133.136] From: "Amit Rainhartz" To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk Subject: dust damages Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:41:16 IDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed I apologize for the cross-posting ... All of you on this list who keep track of tort caselaw - I am trying to find caselaw ( from the U.S, UK, Australia or any other country) on a very specific set of circumstances - The suit deals with damages caused by dust to the growth & quality of fruits in a plantation (Dust caused by the defendant, on regular basis, covered the plantation for lengthy periods of time - disturbing the photosynthesis, decreasing effectiveness of pesticide spraying - thus damaging the growth and the quality of the crop). The only possible cause of action is negligence (the defendant is a body immune, under Israeli law, from any other claim - as nuisance or such ... ). Can anyone recall caselaw on similar circumstances ??? (if not available on the Internet - I will gladly pay for delivery by other means) . many thanks, Amit Rainhartz, Adv. 82/8 Y. L. Gordon St. Tel-Aviv 64388, Israel tel: 972-3-5241920 fax: 972-3-5299752 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >From lionel.smith@law.oxford.ac.uk Fri Aug 20 15:47:11 1999 Received: from oxmail4.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.33] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 11Hpwl-0000Vg-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:47:11 +0100 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.4]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 11HpwE-0004Ux-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:46:38 +0100 Received: from fellow22.sthughs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.228.82]) by sable.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11HpwE-0000mp-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:46:38 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: lawf0014@sable.ox.ac.uk Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19990819184117.25169.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <19990819184117.25169.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:46:17 +0100 To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: Lionel Smith Subject: Re: RDG: dust damages Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" The Restitution Discussion Group is a discussion group, and should not be used to conduct professional legal research in restitution, still less in tort law. Lionel Smith > >All of you on this list who keep track of tort caselaw - > >I am trying to find caselaw ( from the U.S, UK, Australia or any >other country) on a very specific set of circumstances - > >The suit deals with damages caused by dust to the growth & quality >of fruits in a plantation (Dust caused by the defendant, on regular >basis, covered the plantation for lengthy periods of time - >disturbing the photosynthesis, decreasing effectiveness of pesticide >spraying - thus damaging the growth and the quality of the crop). > >The only possible cause of action is negligence (the defendant is a >body immune, under Israeli law, from any other claim - as nuisance >or such ... ). > >Can anyone recall caselaw on similar circumstances ??? (if not >available on the Internet - I will gladly pay for delivery by other >means) . > >many thanks, > >Amit Rainhartz, Adv. >82/8 Y. L. Gordon St. >Tel-Aviv 64388, Israel >tel: 972-3-5241920 >fax: 972-3-5299752 >From KWEK_Mean_Luck@supcourt.gov.sg Sat Aug 21 01:46:22 1999 Received: from medusa.internet.gov.sg ([160.96.179.7]) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 11HzIb-0001k6-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 01:46:21 +0100 Received: from LMS01.LMS.GOV.SG (lms01.gov.sg [10.247.1.20]) by medusa.internet.gov.sg (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA01774 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 08:37:12 +0800 (SGT) From: KWEK_Mean_Luck@SUPCOURT.gov.sg Received: by LMS01.LMS.GOV.SG (Soft-Switch LMS 3.2) with snapi via NOTESAU02 id 0054100008067093; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 08:41:24 +0800 To: Subject: restitution Message-ID: <0054100008067093000002L032*@MHS> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 08:41:24 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline unsubscribe restitution >From lionel.smith@law.oxford.ac.uk Thu Aug 26 09:31:25 1999 Received: from oxmail2.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.1] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 11JuwP-0007S8-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:31:25 +0100 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.4]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 11Juvo-0007Oz-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:30:48 +0100 Received: from fellow22.sthughs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.228.82]) by sable.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Juvn-0003hj-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:30:47 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: lawf0014@sable.ox.ac.uk Message-Id: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:30:06 +0100 To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: Lionel Smith Subject: Lamer CJC announces resignation Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" The Chief Justice of Canada, Rt Hon Antonio Lamer, has announced his resignation effective 7 Jan 00 after 20 years on the Supreme Court of Canada. The text of his letter is at . Lionel >From lowcost_HOSTING@bigfoot.com Tue Aug 31 10:42:40 1999 Received: from dialup6-pm1.cityisp.net ([216.2.9.26] helo=lowcosthosting.lowcostcheaphosting.com) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 11LkR3-0008Bj-00; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:42:38 +0100 Subject: Wholesale Hosting $9.95/mo --RESELLERS WANTED-- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 05:44:00 -0500 To: info@in4web.com X-Mailer: CyberCreek Avalanche 98 Demo; RSR Build:35777 Message-Id: From: 995web_hosting@bigfoot.com How on earth can you sell 100MB Web sites starting at $9.95/month We provide the same services as our competitors (and often much more) for about half what they charge. We can do this for a number of reasons: First, we have no high-priced advertising program; no slick magazine ads costing thousands of dollars a month. We're providing a "value-added" product to all businesses-hosting for Less (Much Less). Second, we standardize products and services among all our servers, which reduces development costs. Third, while we provide unlimited telephone support to holders of our accounts. Our support and service is unparalleled. Doesn't your business deserve the best? You've worked hard to get it up--Now keep it up and running 99% of the time. (still working to make it 100% uptime) Get your domain NOW and Get Online Today !!!! Call Now 888-848-HOST ** Resellers are not only welcome they are encouraged**