Lessons from a 'Conversation' About Restitution
AbstractIn Australia, the law of restitution adheres to the approach exemplified by Lord Mansfield in Moses v Macferlan. It does not recognise ‘unjust enrichment’ as a definitive principle. In the late 20th century, the English courts recognised the principle and, shortly after, the defence of change of position. These developments may owe much to a ‘conversation’ between English and German legal scholars. The German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [Civil Code] (‘BGB’) has long recognised the defence, as a counterpoint to its broad ‘absence of basis’ ground for liability. Notably, however, English law has not (yet) embraced such a broad ground for liability, and still requires a vitiating factor, such as mistake, to found a restitutionary claim. This article considers what implications the adherence to the considerations in Moses v Macferlan may have for the acceptance in Australia of the change of position defence as it is known to English and German law.
Total Abstract Views: 933 Total PDF Downloads: 932
Authors who publish with this journal retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.Articles in this journal are published under the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC-BY). This is to achieve more legal certainty about what readers can do with published articles, and thus a wider dissemination and archiving, which in turn makes publishing with this journal more valuable for authors.