Restitution where an Anticipated Contract Fails to Materialise
|
|
- Prudence Patrick
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Restitution where an Anticipated Contract Fails to Materialise The problem Justin Mannolini Following a tendering process, two parties enter into negotiations for a contract which they both confidently expect will materialise. One undertakes preparatory work or incurs expenses at the request of the other. But negotiations, through no fault of either party, break down, and a binding contract is never formed. The expenses, or remuneration for the work, clearly cannot be recovered as a matter of contract law. Even if there was mala fides, English law does not formally recognise a principle of culpa in contrahendo, or a duty of good faith owed by parties to pre-contractual negotiations. The common law courts have afforded parties substantial freedom in this respect. The request for the work to be done or the expense to be incurred might ground an equitable promissory estoppel,* were it not for English law s reluctance to allow that doctrine to be used as a sword, not merely a ~hield.~ Neither party is guilty of tortious conduct. Must the party performing the work or incurring the expenses therefore bear the loss, or can the law of restitution be called in aid of recovery? This was the question which confronted Rattee J of the Chancery Division in the recent case of Regalian Properties plc & Another v London Docklands Development C~rporation.~ The facts In 1986, Regalian commenced negotiations with the London Docklands Development Corporation ( LDDC ) for the development of land owned by LDDC. Regalian tendered and LDDC accepted a proposal under which Regalian would pay million for a licence to build on the land as and when LDDC obtained vacant possession. The agreement was at all times expressed and understood by both parties to be subject to contract. Long delays subsequently ensued, mostly owing to LDDC s insistence on particular design standards, and to its difficulties in obtaining vacant possession. During this time, Regalian incurred considerable expenses in formulating proposals for the development, despite the fact that (as it conceded at trial) it was aware that either party was at liberty to * Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The author wishes to thank Graham Virgo and Michael Skene for their comments on an earlier draft of this note. 1 Farnsworth, he-contractual Liability and Preliminary Agreements: Fair Dealings and Failed Negotiations (1987) 87 Colum.L.Rev 217, cf Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Humphreys Estate (Queens Gardens) Ltd [ AC 114 (Privy Council). 3 Combe v Combe [I KB 215. Chitry on Contracts (27th edn, 1994) at 3467, Cf Walton Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 76 ALR [I WLR The Modern Law Review Limited 1996 (MLR 591. January). Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF and 238 Main Smer. Cambridge. MA USA. 111
2 The Modern Law Review [Vol. 59 withdraw from project. Eventually, property prices had fallen to such an extent as to render the project unviable, and Regalian was forced to withdraw. No contract was ever formed, the site never developed. But Regalian sought reimbursement of some E3m which it had incurred by way of professional fees in relation to proposals for the development. The judgment The primary basis of Regalian s claim was the law of restitution, which is concerned with the reversal of unjust enrichment obtained by a defendant at the plaintiff s expense. Regalian submitted that one could derive from this body of law the principle that where parties to a proposed contract have a mutual understanding that there will be a contract between them and pursuant to that understanding one party incurs expense which benefits the other party, then if the intended contract fails to materialise through no fault of the party who has incurred expense, that party can recover the wasted costs from the other.5 It claimed support for such a principle both from the key text writers in the field6 and from authorities stemming from the oft-discussed judgment of Barry J in William Lacey (Hounslow) Ltd v Davk7 In a second-string argument, Regalian also relied upon the decision of Sheppard J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Sabemo Ltd v North Sydney Municipal Council.g Since the landmark decision in Lipkin Goman Ltd v Karpnale? the law of restitution has proceeded on a somewhat firmer conceptual footing, although, given the youth of the subject, much remains to be done in formulating the constituent elements of a restitutionary cause of action. At least two requirements seem crucial and both, it is submitted, were problematic for Regalian. First, restitution fastens upon the enrichment of the defendant and not merely loss suffered by the plaintiff; the latter must therefore prove that the former has received some benefit. Second, English law, unlike some of its civil counterparts, recognises no general jurisdiction to award restitution wherever it appears just and equitable to do so. The plaintiff must be able to point to some factor, such as a mistake of fact or a total failure of consideration, which is recognised, as a matter of legal principle, as sufficient to render the defendant s enrichment unjust, and thus to ground a restitutionary claim.lo Regalian s first hurdle lay in proving that LDDC had been benefited by virtue of the expenses incurred. This was no easy task; the various plans and specifications prepared were rendered practically useless when the development was scrapped. Common sense, of course, would appear to dictate that the notion of benefit connotes some accretion of wealth in the hands of the defendant, or at least a saving of necessary expenses. But theorists have seized upon some cases, most notably Phnche v Colburn, * which seem to provide authority for a more sophisticated understanding of the concept of enrichment, broad enough to include 5 Id, at Goff and Jones, The Law of Resrirurion (4th edn) (London; Sweet & Maxwell, 1993), Chapter [1957] I WLR (1977) 2 NSWLR [I All ER Id, at 532. I1 Beatson, Benefit, Reliance and the Structure of Unjust Enrichment (1987) 40 CLP (1831) 8 Bing 14; 131 ER The Modem Law Review Limited 1996
3 January Regalian Properties plc v LDDC any services performed at the request of the defendant, at least so far as they are required by the (actual or anticipated) contract. l3 Surprisingly, Pianche v Colburn did not appear to feature in Regalian s argument. It is less surprising, therefore, that Rattee J chose to apply the common sense approach, concluding that the expenses incurred by Regalian were merely preparatory to its own performance and conferred no benefit on LDDC.14 This finding alone, of course, should have been sufficient to defeat Regalian s restitutionary claim; without a benefit being conferred on the defendant, there is no unjust enrichment which the law of restitution could be concerned to reverse. Nonetheless, Rattee J went on to examine the cases relied upon by Regalian in support of the claim. In a cautious judgment, Rattee J held that, because it was expressly agreed that either party was free to withdraw from the transaction at any time, each must have accepted that, should no contract materialise, any losses were to lie where they fell.1s Rattee J distinguished the facts from those in William Lacey. In that case, the work for which the plaintiff claimed recompense was not work done for the purposes of the expected contract, but was rather for... some extraneous purpose. 16 That purpose comprised the facilitation of a claim before the War Damage Commission, which was established to provide assistance to redevelopment programmes after the Second World War. In contrast, Regalian incurred the relevant expenses for the purpose of enabling it to obtain and perform the expected contract. With respect, this distinction is not compelling for the purposes of restitutionary analysis. The more pertinent grounds for distinguishing the cases seems to be that in William hcey the defendant was benefited by the plaintiffs work, albeit not in the manner envisaged under the anticipated contract,ig whereas this was not the case in Regalian. Rattee J also concluded that Regalian could draw no support from Marston v Kigass,I9 nor from British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd.20 The former was distinguishable on two grounds; first, had the contract in that case been formed, the defendant would have been obliged to reimburse the plaintiff for its expenditure, whereas the LDDC would have been under no such obligation; and second, a benefit had clearly accrued to the defendant in that case. His Honour treated British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd as a case involving the accelerated performance of the anticipated contract, whereas the relevant expenditure was incurred by Regalian for the purpose of putting [the plaintiff] in a position to obtain and then perform the contract.21 Again, however factual conclusions on the existence of benefit aside, none of the grounds of distinction relied upon by Rattee J were relevant to the restitutionary claim. The kind of work done by the plaintiff - whether it was preparatory to contract, or amounted to partial performance of the contract - and the manner in which any benefit accrued in the defendant s hands, may well be ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Birks, In Defence of Free Acceptance, in Burrows (ed.) Essays on rhe Law of Resriturion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), at See Earheart v William Low 25 Cal 3d 503 (1979) at 510 (Supreme Court of California). Supra, n4 at 225. Id, at 231. Id, at 224. Id. cf Goff and Jones. supra, n 6 at (1989) 15 Con LR 116. [ I All ER 504. At The Modern Law Review Limited I3
4 The Modern Law Review [Vol. 59 central to a claim in contract. But for restitution, the only question facing his Honour at the relevant stage of analysis was simply: Has the defendant been enriched? Having answered that question in the negative, Regalian s (purely) restitutionary claim must have been doomed from the outset. The unjust factor? Assuming that the LDDC had been enriched, would Regalian have been entitled to restitution? Its second obstacle lay in identifying a factor which could be said to render the defendant s (here presumed) benefit unjust. Unfortunately, it is not clear from Rattee J s judgment what that unjust factor might have been. On the facts, only two factors seemed to be contenders for this honour; total failure of consideration, and free acceptance. Most lawyers will be familiar, if not comfortable, with the doctrine of total failure of consideration. Where the consideration for a payment can be said to have totally failed, the payer will be entitled to restitution.22 Consideration is here used in the sense of expected performance by the recipient of the payment, rather than that which is required to render a contract legally binding. Free acceptance, on the other hand, may be a somewhat alien notion. According to standard form~lations,2~ a party will be held to have freely accepted a benefit if he, as a reasonable man, should have known that the plaintiff who conferred the benefit expected to be compensated for it, and yet failed to take advantage of a reasonable opportunity to reject that benefit. Goff and Jones take the view that free acceptance might provide a suitable basis for restitution in cases where expenses are incurred in anticipation of a contract which fails to materiali~e.~~ Birks, too, seems to reach the same concl~sion.*~ But free acceptance is not uniformly accepted as a legitimate unjust factor. Burrows, for example, claims that the cases relied upon in support of the principle are more appropriately analysed in terms of failure of consideration.26 In his later works, Birks seems to have conceded the force of Burrows arguments with respect to quantum meruit claims for unfinished work.27 This being so, Birks may now be willing to consider a failure of consideration, rather than free acceptance analysis in the context of anticipated contracts. The most obvious difficulty with the failure of consideration analysis is, as Goff and Jones point out, its historical inaccuracy. The common law has never entertained quantum meruit claims on the basis of a total failure of consideration. That concept has generally been confined to claims for the recovery of contractual payments. Burrows and other critics of free acceptance retort by emphasising that that concept, too, is without explicit judicial support. However, Reguliun v LDDC demonstrates that this is more than a sterile, academic debate. It is submitted that if, as Burrows contends, cases of free acceptance are swallowed up by a broad notion of failure of consideration, Regalian would have been denied a remedy even on the assumption that the LDDC had been enriched. 22 Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn, Lawson, Combe, Barbour Ltd [1943] AC Goff and Jones, supra, n6 at Id. Chapter An Introduction to the Low of Restitution (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) at Burrows, Free Acceptance and the Law of Restitution (1988) 104 LQR Birks, In Defence of Free Acceptance in A. Burrows (ed.), Essays on the Law of Restitution (1991) The Modem Law Review Limited 1996
5 January Regalian Properties plc v LDDC As Regalian conceded, it was always aware that either party was free to walk away from the negotiations. The consideration for which those expenses were incurred was not, therefore, the formation of a legally binding contract; it was the chance of securing such a contract. Thus Regalian could not be heard to complain if, as was admittedly within its contemplation, that chance was lost. This provides an important distinction from the William Lacey case, in which Barry J found that the mutual belief and understanding upon which the work was done by the plaintiff was that this building would be reconstructed and that the plaintiff company was obtaining the contract.** This was more than a mere hope that a contract would be concluded. On the other hand, if one were to accept the legitimacy of free acceptance as an unjust factor, it is submitted that LDDC would be obliged to pay a quantum meruit in respect of any enrichment which it had an opportunity to reject, but instead elected to accept. Presumably the normal rules of valuation in quantum meruit claims would apply, and Regalian would be entitled to the market value of the benefit at the time it was rendered. Of course, this may or may not have corresponded with the precise amount of the expenses incurred. Saberno One final point of interest from the judgment of Rattee J was his rejection of the principle said to emerge from Saberno, in which Sheppard J stated:29 Where two parties proceed upon the joint assumption that a contract will be entered into between them, and one does work beneficial for the project, and thus in the interests of the two parties, which work he would not be expected, in other circumstances, to do gratuitously, he will be entitled to compensation or restitution, if the other party unilaterally decides to abandon the project, not for any reason associated with bona fide disagreement concerning the terms of the contract to be entered into, but for reasons which, however valid, pertain only to his own position and do not relate at all to that of the other party. Although Rattee J was able to distinguish Subemo on the facts, he went on to suggest that the principle enunciated by Sheppard J... is not established by any English authority.3o It is submitted that, so far as that principle would support recovery of pre-contractual expenses outside restitution or estoppel, this is clearly ~orrect.~ It is difficult to ascertain whether Sheppard J conceived of his judgment as an extension of existing contractual or equitable principles, or as laying down a new and sui generis principle. Certainly His Honour disclaimed any suggestion that the principle was restitutionary. It is submitted that the most plausible explanation, given Sheppard J s reference to bona fide disagreement, is that he contemplated some limited form of culpa in contrahendo doctrine, or duty of good faith between parties to precontractual negotiations. As noted above, both notions are largely alien to the common law, particularly in England. Problems of proof aside, the concept of mala fides is a notoriously imprecise and ambiguous one, especially in the context of arms-length pre-contractual negotiations between sophisticated parties. In this respect Rattee J s disapproval of Subemo should be welcomed. 28 Supra, n 7 at 939. See Goff and Jones, supra, n6 at 556, fn Supra, n 8 at At But see Davies, What s in a Name? (1981) 1 OJLS 300 at The Modern Law Review Limited
6 The Modern Law Review [Vol. 59 Conclusion Regalian v LDDC demonstrates the kind of new and novel applications to which the law of restitution is likely to be put as it takes its place as a legitimate branch of the common law of obligations. It also demonstrates the practical importance of continued conceptual clarification in the, law of restitution. In the field of pre-contractual liability, the law of restitution will only be of assistance to a plaintiff who has benefited the defendant, and who is able to point to circumstances which render that benefit unjust. These limitations, it is submitted, properly balance what Farnsworth has called the common law's commendably 'aleatory' view of pre-contractual negotiation^,^^ with the need to ensure that justice is done between the parties. Certainly, restitution is more likely to yield consistent and just results than vague notions of good faith in precontractual negotiations. Defective Premises - the Empire Strikes Back 8 Robyn Martin" In a recent edition of the Review,' Laura Hoyano discussed the Supreme Court of Canada's rejection of English law on defective premises in Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No 36 v Bird Construction Co Ltd.2 Since then the High Court of Australia in Bryan v Maloney3 has also declined to follow the House of Lords in D & F Estate$ and Murphy v BrentwoodS and returned us to a nostalgic era of pragmatic, policy based decision making. The facts of Bryan v Maloney, unlike those in Winnipeg Condominium, are simple. A small time builder built a house for his sister-in-law in She sold it, and that purchaser sold it on in 1986 to the plaintiff, Mrs Maloney. Six months after taking possession of the house the plaintiff noticed cracks which were found to be the result of inadequate foundations. By this time damage to the fabric of the house was extensive. The story is familiar and commonplace. The person in the street might well think the solution simple. The negligent builder of the foundations should pay for the damage to the house, in the same way that the negligent manufacturer of any other good is required by law to compensate for damage caused. Yet the answer to the question whether a negligent builder should be liable to a subsequent purchaser has occupied the attention of the highest courts of Commonwealth jurisdictions,, 32 Supra, n 1 at 421. * University of Bristol 1 (1995) 58 MLR 887., 2 3 [(1995) 121 DLR (4th) 193. (1995) 1.28 ALR 163: Mason CJ, Deane J, Toohey J and Gaudron J agreed that a builder owed to a subsequent purchaser a duty of care, Brennan J dissenting. Toohey J delivered a separate judgment departing from the majority on the dangeroudnon-dangerous defects distinction. 4 [1989] AC [I9911 I AC The Modern Law Review Limited 1996
The definitive version of this article is at (2003) 66 Modern Law Review 284, available electronically at
The definitive version of this article is at (2003) 66 Modern Law Review 284, available electronically at www.blackwell-synergy.com FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION Roxborough v Rothmans Peter Jaffey * Introduction
More informationA breach of contract occurs where a party does not comply with one or more of the terms of contract, express or implied.
CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG Breach and Remedy Refer to Richards, P. Law of Contract Chapters 16-18 Uff, J. Construction Law 9 th Edition Chapter 9 BREACH OF CONTRACT A breach of contract occurs where
More informationA Principled Response to Pre-Contractual Remuneration
953 A Principled Response to Pre-Contractual Remuneration Kelvin Koh Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore Email: kelvin_koh11@hotmail.com Abstract: Under English law, there are uncertainties
More informationMistaken Payments - The Right of Recovery and the Defences
Bond Law Review Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 7 1995 Mistaken Payments - The Right of Recovery and the Defences Kwai-Lian Liew Bond University Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr
More informationRELEVANCE OF DOCTRINE OF QUANTUM MERUIT IN INDIA AND ENGLAND. Dr. Saroj Saini, Assistant Professor,Department of Laws, Punjab University, Chandigarh.
LAW MANTRA THINK BEYOND OTHERS (I.S.S.N 2321-6417 (Online) Ph: +918255090897 Website: journal.lawmantra.co.in E-mail: info@lawmantra.co.in contact@lawmantra.co.in RELEVANCE OF DOCTRINE OF QUANTUM MERUIT
More informationUnjust Enrichment Claims by Informal Carers
Unjust Enrichment Claims by Informal Carers Brian Sloan Bob Alexander College Lecturer in Law, King s College, Cambridge An informal carer is an individual who, in the absence of a contractual duty to
More informationIn the contractual context partial failure of consideration is concerned with. Partial Failure of Consideration JOHN TARRANT *
PARTIAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION 59 Partial Failure of Consideration JOHN TARRANT * The common law has long made a distinction between total failure of consideration and partial failure of consideration.
More informationI decided that the question (in several parts) would be best scanned and embedded into the answer (see overleaf). This did not impress the examiner!
LLM COMMERCIAL LAW (2006-2007): LEGAL METHOD AND RESEARCH Question: I decided that the question (in several parts) would be best scanned and embedded into the answer (see overleaf). This did not impress
More informationEquitable Estoppel: Defining the Detriment
Bond Law Review Volume 11 Issue 1 Article 8 1999 Equitable Estoppel: Defining the Detriment Denis S. K Ong Bond University, denis_ong@bond.edu.au Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr
More informationExamining the current law relating to limitation and causes of action (tortious and contractual) within a construction context
Examining the current law relating to limitation and causes of action (tortious and contractual) within a construction context Received (in revised form): 11th September, 2005 Sarah Wilson is an associate
More informationNegligence: Approaching the duty of care
Negligence: Approaching the duty of care Introduction: Elements of negligence: - The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. - That the duty must have been breached. - That breach must have caused
More informationEQUITABLE REMEDIES IN COMMERCIAL LITIGATION: Concurrent session 1A Constructive trust
EQUITABLE REMEDIES IN COMMERCIAL LITIGATION: Concurrent session 1A Constructive trust LIMITATION PERIODS, DISHONEST ASSISTANCE, KNOWING RECEIPT AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS Thursday, 5 March 2015 for the Joint
More informationProperty Litigation Association Property Bar Association Joint Seminar London, 19 September 2012
Property Litigation Association Property Bar Association Joint Seminar London, 19 September 2012 PROPRIETARY RESTITUTION: RIGHTS AND REMEDIES Professor Graham Virgo Professor of English Private Law Faculty
More informationEnforcing oral agreements to develop land in English law Panesar, S. Published version deposited in CURVE March 2012
Enforcing oral agreements to develop land in English law Panesar, S. Published version deposited in CURVE March 2012 Original citation & hyperlink: Panesar, S. (2009) Enforcing oral agreements to develop
More informationINTRODUCTION. The Principle of Estoppel
PART VIII ESTOPPEL I INTRODUCTION A The Principle of Estoppel An estoppel is a principle that prevents a party from asserting a contrary position to that which has already been established. An estoppel
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND O.S. No. 801 of 1997 TOWNSVILLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND O.S. No. 801 of 1997 TOWNSVILLE IN THE MATTER of The Trusts Act 1973 IN THE MATTER of COLLEEN PILCHOWSKI, RITA PILCHOWSKI and MERVYN JOHN PILCHOWSKI (RETIRING TRUSTEES)
More information1. It is simply an expression of intention to enter into a contract in the future; and 2. It will usually have no binding effect.
LETTERS OF INTENT REVIEWED The purpose of this article is to consider the following: 1. What is a letter of intent; 2. What is their purpose; 3. What is their contractual significance; 4. How is remuneration
More informationPowell v Braun [1954] 1 All ER 484; Turriff Constructions Ltd v Regalia Knitting Mills Ltd (1971) 9 BLR 24.
Quantum meruit 1. What it is (c) The expression quantum meruit means "the amount he deserves" or "what the job is worth". Essentially, quantum meruit is an action for payment of the reasonable value of
More informationCITATION: Firedam Civil Engineering Pty Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council [2009] NSWSC 802
NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT CITATION: Firedam Civil Engineering Pty Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council [2009] NSWSC 802 JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S): 55037/2009 HEARING DATE(S): 24 July 2009 JUDGMENT
More informationProfiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors
Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors Author: Tim Wardell Special Counsel Edwards Michael Lawyers Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working
More informationQUANTUM MERUIT SOME PITFALLS
QUANTUM MERUIT SOME PITFALLS Ben Jacobs 8 November 2017 OVERVIEW CONTEXT A valid construction contract has been repudiated by one party, such repudiation having been validly accepted by the other party
More informationCHOICE OF LAW (GOVERNING LAW) BOILERPLATE CLAUSE
CHOICE OF LAW (GOVERNING LAW) BOILERPLATE CLAUSE Need to know A choice of law clause (or governing law clause) enables contracting parties to nominate the law which applies to govern their contract. The
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE LIABILITY OF BUILDING PROFESSIONALS IN NSW
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE LIABILITY OF BUILDING PROFESSIONALS IN NSW Paper given by Brian Walton to the Annual Conference of the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors 21 22 July 2014 Introduction
More informationThe Contractor s building defects liability in England and Wales
The Contractor s building defects liability in England and Wales We discuss in this paper in what circumstances can a contractor be found liable for defects discovered by the building occupier several
More informationBody Corporate Plan No. PS509946A v VM Romano Construction Group Pty Ltd & Anor (Domestic Building) [2009] VCAT 1662
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. D679/2007 CATCHWORDS Whether leave to withdraw earlier admissions should be granted APPLICANT FIRST
More informationConsideration sits alongside, offer and acceptance to form a legally binding contract.
CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG Consideration and Estoppel Refer to Richards Law of Contract Chapter 3 A Introduction Background and function Consideration sits alongside, offer and acceptance to form a legally
More informationIndex (2006) 22 BCL
Acceleration costs implied direction to accelerate works requires clearest evidence, 62-74 Accord and satisfaction whether terms of settlement amounted to, 16-30 Accreditation scheme Commonwealth building
More informationWaiver, Estoppel and Election in the context of adjudication applications
1 Waiver, Estoppel and Election in the context of adjudication applications Adjudication Forum 13 November 2012 Max Tonkin The Pareto Principal Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto observed in 1906 that 80%
More informationTHE IJIABILITY FOR GRATUITOUS ADVICE. By E. I. SYKES, B.A., LL.B.
I THE IJIABILITY FOR GRATUITOUS ADVICE By E. I. SYKES, B.A., LL.B. N Banbury v. The Bank of Montreall Lord Finlay L.C. and Lord Atkinson were r~sponsible for certain obiter dicta regarding a topic which
More informationRestitution for a Total Failure ofconsideration: When a Total Failure is not a Total Failure
Restitution for a Total Failure ofconsideration: When a Total Failure is not a Total Failure James Edelman" The doctrine of total failure ofconsideration, now part of the distinct law of restitution, has,
More informationDAMAGES FOR M ~ ADISTRESS DAMAGES FOR MENTAL DISTRESS IN CONTRACT
DAMAGES FOR M ~ ADISTRESS L IN coi?l'ract 111 DAMAGES FOR MENTAL DISTRESS IN CONTRACT Dean ~ambovski* A long established principle under common law is that damages are not recoverable for mental distress
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Contracts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question On April 1, Pat, a computer software
More informationConstruction Law: Recent Developments of Importance
Construction Law: Recent Developments of Importance Bruce Reynolds and James MacLellan Published in the Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada (2002 Lexpert/American Lawyer Media) During the past year
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Gemini Nominees Pty Ltd v Queensland Property Partners Pty Ltd ATF The Keith Batt Family Trust [2007] QSC 20 PARTIES: GEMINI NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 011 020 536) (plaintiff)
More informationVee Networks Ltd. v Econet Wireless International Ltd. [2004] APP.L.R. 12/14
JUDGMENT : Mr Justice Colman : Commercial Court. 14 th December 2004 Introduction 1. The primary application before the court is under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to challenge an arbitration
More informationIn Unions New South Wales v New South Wales,1 the High Court of Australia
Samantha Graham * UNIONS NEW SOUTH WALES v NEW SOUTH WALES (2013) 304 ALR 266 I Introduction In Unions New South Wales v New South Wales,1 the High Court of Australia considered the constitutional validity
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Martinek Holdings Pty Ltd v Reed Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 329 PARTIES: MARTINEK HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 106 533 242 (applicant/appellant) v REED CONSTRUCTION
More informationVolume 17, April 1943, Number 2 Article 9
St. John's Law Review Volume 17, April 1943, Number 2 Article 9 Contract for Sale of Goods--Contract Frustrated by War--Total Failure of Consideration--Recovery of Money Previously Paid (Fibrosa Spolka
More informationWEEK 4-6: REMEDIES FOR BREACH
WEEK 4-6: REMEDIES FOR BREACH Overview of Remedies for breach (weeks 4-6) Damages Specific performance/injunction Liquidated damages/penalties Restitution/Action for debt Week 4: Remedies Damages (measures
More informationENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING CONTRACTS Liabilities and Powers
ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING CONTRACTS 1.0 Who is an Engineer? 1.1 A loose term, no common law definition. 1.2 Vague and circular definition given in section 2, Registration of Engineers Act, 1967 ( Engineers
More informationBook Review: The Effect of War on Contracts
Yale Law School Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship Series Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship 1-1-1946 Book Review: The Effect of War on Contracts Arthur L. Corbin Follow
More informationProtecting Legitimate Expectations and Estoppel in English Law Report to the XVIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, July 2006
Protecting Legitimate Expectations and Estoppel in English Law Report to the XVIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, July 2006 John Cartwright* Readers are reminded that this work is protected
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA110/05. William Young P, Arnold and Ellen France JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA110/05 BETWEEN AND PRIME COMMERCIAL LIMITED Appellant WOOL BOARD DISESTABLISHMENT COMPANY LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 25 July 2006 Court: Counsel: William Young
More informationAUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW NEWS
AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW NEWS NEW SOUTH WALES SENTENCING PRINCIPLES OF TOTALITY" AND "EVENHANDEDNESS" CamillerVs Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority Unreported, Court of Criminal
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE GARY LEGGE AND MAUREEN LEGGE. Between CHRIS RAMSAWACK AND WESTERN SHIP AND RIG SUPPLIES LIMITED
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV No. 2013-00249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE GARY LEGGE 1 st Claimant AND MAUREEN LEGGE 2 nd Claimant Between CHRIS RAMSAWACK 1 st Defendant AND WESTERN SHIP AND RIG
More informationIndex. Volume 21 (2005) 21 BCL
Index Abandoned claims judgment on, principally concerned with costs, 12-13, 33-44 whether cost reduction appropriate because of, 125 Access to the premises AS 4917-2003, 9-10 Acts Interpretation Act 1954
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES: EMPHASISING THE LAW OF CONTRACT. Tom Brennan 1. Barrister, 13 Wentworth Chambers
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES: EMPHASISING THE LAW OF CONTRACT Tom Brennan 1 Barrister, 13 Wentworth Chambers Australian law has shifted from regulating the employer/employee relationship
More informationMott MacDonald Ltd v London & Regional Properties Ltd [2007] Adj.L.R. 05/23
JUDGMENT : HHJ Anthony Thornton QC. TCC. 23 rd May 2007 1. Introduction 1. The claimant, Mott MacDonald Ltd ( MM ) is a specialist engineering multi-disciplinary consultancy providing services to the construction
More informationEquitable Estoppel: Defining the Detriment - A Rejoinder
Bond Law Review Volume 12 Issue 1 Article 5 2000 Equitable Estoppel: Defining the Detriment - A Rejoinder Denis S. K Ong Bond University, denis_ong@bond.edu.au Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr
More informationTopic Pleading and Joinder of claims and parties, Representative and Class Actions 1) Res Judicata (Colbran )
WEEK 3 Topic Pleading and Joinder of claims and parties, Representative and Class Actions 1) Res Judicata (Colbran 363-370) Res judicata is a type of plea made in court that precludes the relitgation of
More informationTWO NOTES ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING 'PROXIMITY' IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS PROXIMITY AND NEGLIGENT ADVICE THE SAN SEBASTIAN CASE
TWO NOTES ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING 'PROXIMITY' IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS PROXIMITY AND NEGLIGENT ADVICE THE SAN SEBASTIAN CASE Alex Bruce* 1. Introduction In November 1986, the High Court handed down
More informationPart 36, Construction and the Doctrine of Mistake. Andrew Hogan
Part 36, Construction and the Doctrine of Mistake Andrew Hogan For many reasons, the tool of choice to use for the compromise of disputes, either litigated or at the pre-litigation stage, is the part 36
More informationAnswer A to Question 1
Answer A to Question 1 The issue is whether Pat has a valid contract with Danco and whether Danco has breached such contract, and what damages Pat is entitled to as a result. Service Contract Contracts
More informationUnjust enrichment? Bank secures equitable charge where it failed to get a legal charge: Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus [2015] UKSC 66
Unjust enrichment? Bank secures equitable charge where it failed to get a legal charge: Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus [2015] UKSC 66 1. The decision of the Supreme Court in Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd
More informationTRUST LAW DIFC LAW NO.6 OF Annex A
DIFC LAW NO.6 OF 2017 Annex A CONTENTS PART 1: GENERAL... 6 1. Title and repeal... 6 2. Legislative authority... 6 3. Application of the Law... 6 4. Scope of the Law... 6 5. Date of Enactment... 6 6. Commencement...
More informationTHE ILLEGALITY DEFENCE FOLLOWING. Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42
THE ILLEGALITY DEFENCE FOLLOWING Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 Ronelp Marine Ltd & others v STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co Ltd & another [2016] EWHC 2228 (Ch) at [36]: 36 Counsel for STX argued that once
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE HIGH COURT CIVIL DIVISION
BARBADOS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE HIGH COURT CIVIL DIVISION Civil Suit No.: 0953 of 2014 BETWEEN C.O. WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION LTD. DEFENDANT/CLAIMANT AND 3S (BARBADOS) SRL APPLICANT/DEFENDANT AND
More informationContents. Table of Statutes. Table of Secondary Legislation. Table of Cases. The Agreement to Contract
Contents Table of Statutes Table of Secondary Legislation Table of Cases Chapter 1: The Agreement to Contract 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Elements required for a valid simple contract 1.3 The phenomenon of agreement
More informationNegligence 1. Duty of Care 2. Breach of duty of care p 718 c) p 724
Negligence 1. Duty of Care Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 - a duty of care could exist in any situation where loss, damage or injury to one party was reasonable foreseeable (foreseeable harm) - the
More informationChecklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges
Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity See also extensive case law in this volume under the sections identified below, and in the introduction to Part XV. A. Public highways
More informationTo Discharge By Performance
To Discharge By Performance Requirements Start by looking at the contract to see if it has a term that of entire performance. If not then the exceptions may apply. 1. ENITRE PERFORMANCE RULE - The general
More informationDamages in Tort 6. Damages in Contract 18. Restitution 27. Rescission 32. Specific Performance 38. Account of Profits 40.
LW401 REMEDIES Damages in Tort 6 Damages in Contract 18 Restitution 27 Rescission 32 Specific Performance 38 Account of Profits 40 Injunctions 43 Mareva Orders and Anton Piller Orders 49 Rectification
More informationPractice Guideline 9: Guideline for Arbitrators on Making Orders Relating to the Costs of the Arbitration
Practice Guideline 9: Guideline for Arbitrators on Making Orders Relating to the Costs of the Arbitration 1. Introduction 1.1 One of the most difficult and important functions which an arbitrator has to
More informationLIMITATION OF LIABILITY BY ACCOUNTANTS
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY BY ACCOUNTANTS Introduction 1. Traditionally, a central plank of an accountant s corporate work has been carrying out the audit. However, over the years the profession s role has
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. 08-CV-12634
Crawford v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA Doc. 25 BETTY CRAWFORD, a.k.a. Betty Simpson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION vs. Plaintiff, Case No. 08-CV-12634 HON. GEORGE
More informationExpectation, Reliance and Detriment. What is it the essential aim of the remedy of proprietary estoppel?
Expectation, Reliance and Detriment. What is it the essential aim of the remedy of proprietary estoppel? Elizabeth Fitzgerald discusses this controversial topic in the wake of the recent decision of the
More informationBy Melvyn L. Solmon THE STANDARD OF CARE
Negligence Claims Resulting from Decisions Related to Settlement Offers and Other Judgment Calls Is there Really a Case Against Counsel and is an Expert Report Necessary? By Melvyn L. Solmon Every counsel
More informationTHE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE RECEIPT OF A BRIBE. MAHESAN v. MALA YSIA GOVERNMENT OFFICERS' CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 1
The University ofqueensland Law Journal Vol. 12, No.1 89 Case Note THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE RECEIPT OF A BRIBE MAHESAN v. MALA YSIA GOVERNMENT OFFICERS' CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 1 D.A. Mullins*
More informationPublic Authorities and Private Individuals - What Difference?: Romeo v Consemtion Commission of the
Public Authorities and Private Individuals - What Difference?: Romeo v Consemtion Commission of the Northern Territory Susan Barton BALLB student, The University of Queensland Once upon a time public authorities
More informationRylands v Fletcher - Water escaped from a reservoir on the defendant s land causing the flooding of a mine on neighbouring land.
CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG The Rylands and Fletcher Rule Refer to Elliott & Quinn Tort Law 7 th Edition Chapters 10 & 11 The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher I A Introductory Issues It is a Strict Liability
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN STEVE JAIPERSAD AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Civil Appeal No: P139 of 2014 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN STEVE JAIPERSAD Appellant AND SHIRAZE AHAMAD (ALSO CALLED SHIRAZ AHAMAD) Respondent PANEL: A. Mendonça, J.A.
More informationPERSONAL LIABILITY OF "DIRECTORS" OF NON-EXISTENT COMPANIES.
PERSONAL LIABILITY OF "DIRECTORS" OF NON-EXISTENT COMPANIES. In Black v. Smallwood and Cooper1 the plaintiffs contracted to sell their land to a company called Western Suburbs Holdings Pty. Ltd. The defendants
More informationvs. ** CASE NO. 3D LOWER TRIBUNAL NO ** JC INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING, etc., **
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2003 PDM BRIDGE CORP., etc., ** Appellant, **
More informationPromissory Estoppel : Applicability on Govt - By Divya Bhargava Tuesday, 10 November :48 - Last Updated Wednesday, 11 November :01
The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is an equitable doctrine. This principle is commonly invoked in common law in case of breach of contract or against a Government. The doctrine is popularly called as
More informationCapturing the IT customer s requirements: a shared responsibility
Page 1 of 5 18th BILETA Conference:Controlling Information in the Online Environment April, 2003 QMW, London Capturing the IT customer s requirements: a shared responsibility Ruth Atkins University of
More informationCivil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92
New South Wales Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22 2 4 Consequential repeals
More informationStanford is the Full Court in reverse or just changing gears?
PROPERTY Stanford is the Full Court in reverse or just changing gears? JACKY CAMPBELL Stanford - Is the Full Court in reverse or just changing gears? Jacky Campbell Forte Family Lawyers The Full Court
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Matrix Projects (Qld) Pty Ltd v Luscombe [2013] QSC 4 PARTIES: MATRIX PROJECTS (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 089 633 607 trading as MATRIX HOMES (Applicant) v TONY JASON LUSCOMBE
More informationIs there a contract?
1. te whether this transaction is governed by UCC or the Restatement. 2. Does the Statute of Frauds apply? The contract must be in writing if it is in regard to land, if by its nature it takes more than
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUMAIR MOHAN
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 45 of 2008 BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPELLANTS AND SUMAIR MOHAN RESPONDENT PANEL: A. Mendonça,
More informationCHAPTER SEVEN. Conclusion
CHAPTER SEVEN Conclusion I. Introduction The growth of contracts made for the benefit of third parties necessitates a review of the doctrine of privity in Malaysia. The reasons for the growth of these
More informationTURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS TRUSTS BILL 2015 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS TRUSTS BILL 2015 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES PART I PRELIMINARY CLAUSE 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Meaning of insolvent 4. Meaning of personal relationship
More informationDAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTS: EMERGING JUDICIAL TRENDS
DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTS: EMERGING JUDICIAL TRENDS SUMMARY Contracts are an integral part of everyday s life, all over the world. Thus every complex imposes obligations on the parties. If the contract
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Oral Reasons for Judgment July 14, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And ICBC v. Dragon Driving School et al, 2005 BCSC 1093 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Dragon Driving School Canada Ltd., Foon-Wai
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Tynan & Anor v Filmana Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2015] QSC 367 PARTIES: DAVID PATRICK TYNAN and JUDITH GARCIA TYNAN (plaintiffs) v FILMANA PTY LTD ACN 080 055 429 (first
More information[2005] VCAT Arrow International Australia Pty Ltd Indevelco Pty Ltd Perpetual Nominees Ltd as custodian of the Colonial First State Income Fund
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. D181/2004 CATCHWORDS Requests for Further and Better Particulars and further discovery nature of this
More informationWeek 4: Intention and Certainty
Week 4: Intention and Certainty Contract Law Intention - A contract can only be enforceable if the parties intended by that agreement to create legal relations. - This is tested objectively would a reasonable
More informationIssues in Unjust Enrichment
5.5 CPD HRS INTENSIVE Issues in Unjust Enrichment JULY 2014 www.lawyerseducation.co.nz FROM THE CHAIR The law of restitution has a history not much shorter than the law of contract and tort law, but it
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES IMPORTANT NOTICE PROVIDENT CAPITAL LIMITED CLASS ACTIONS
SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES IMPORTANT NOTICE PROVIDENT CAPITAL LIMITED CLASS ACTIONS A: ABOUT THIS NOTICE 1. Why are you receiving this notice? 1.1 The Supreme Court of New South Wales has ordered
More informationGREG LAUGHTON SC. Mobile: +(61)(0) Table of Contents
GREG LAUGHTON SC SYDNEY Selborne Chambers 174 Phillip Street, Sydney 2000 DX 394 Sydney Telephone: + 61(0) 29233 8796 Facsimile: + 61(0)29221 4196 Email: glaughton@selbornechambers.com.au LONDON 1 Gray
More informationElements of a Civil Claim
Elements of a Civil Claim This presentation provides an overview of the elements of a civil claim, with particular reference to construction claims, and looks at each dispute resolution option in the context
More informationwith in this paper, namely the circumstances in which tracing is not available.
Tracing The Loss of the Right to Trace 1. Introduction: The Nature of Tracing 1.1 Consistently with the conceptual and linguistic difficulties associated with the topic of tracing, there is no uncontroversial
More informationEnforcement of Foreign Judgments. The Usual Rules Apply (no exception for insolvency)
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments The Usual Rules Apply (no exception for insolvency) The Supreme Court has just given judgment (24 October 2012) in Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New
More informationU-TURN ON RIGHTS OF WAY
U-TURN ON RIGHTS OF WAY In an article published in Solicitors Journal on *** it was noted that it had been established since 1993 that vehicular rights of access over common land could not arise by prescription.
More informationEQUITABLE INTERESTS IN LAND ARISING FROM ESTOPPEL. College of Law, Sydney. 9 March Edmund Finnane 1
EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN LAND ARISING FROM ESTOPPEL College of Law, Sydney 9 March 2010 Edmund Finnane 1 Introduction 1. Bryson JA said in Khoury & Anor v Khouri 2 : It must be obvious to anyone with any
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Doolan and Anor v Rubikcon (Qld) Pty Ltd and Ors [07] QSC 68 SANDRA DOOLAN AND STEPHEN DOOLAN (applicants) v RUBIKCON (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 099 635 275 (first
More informationCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of Research Contract is defined in various ways. A contract has been defined by Beatson in Anson s Law of Contract as a legally binding agreement made between two
More informationIN DEFENCE OF THE RELIANCE THEORY OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
Darryn Jensen * IN DEFENCE OF THE RELIANCE THEORY OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL T he High Court judgments in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Limited v ~aher' presented equitable estoppel as a doctrine concerned with
More informationPART 5 DUTIES OF DIRECTORS AND OTHER OFFICERS CHAPTER 1 Preliminary and definitions 219. Interpretation and application (Part 5) 220.
PART 5 DUTIES OF DIRECTORS AND OTHER OFFICERS CHAPTER 1 Preliminary and definitions 219. Interpretation and application (Part 5) 220. Connected persons 221. Shadow directors 222. De facto director CHAPTER
More informationJUDGMENT. BPE Solicitors and another (Respondents) v Gabriel (Appellant)
Trinity Term [2015] UKSC 39 On appeal from: [2013] EWCA Civ 1513 JUDGMENT BPE Solicitors and another (Respondents) v Gabriel (Appellant) before Lord Mance Lord Sumption Lord Carnwath Lord Toulson Lord
More information