Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:14
From: Lionel Smith
Subject: Deceit: damages and account
On 23/11/07 10:45, "Jason Neyers" wrote:
For those of us who buy the CJ justification for disgorgement there are good reasons why fraud will not support that remedy.
[CJ here means corrective justice.]
Well, maybe not all of us. I tend to think I’m with Charles on this one, unless someone can show me that there is something about the right infringed in a case of deceit that necessarily confines recourse to the compensatory measure.
But I suggest that the other point, about waiver, is a draw. Whatever Viscount Simon may have said in that context, there were many claims in assumpsit which did not depend on wrongdoing (all the common counts were assumpsit claims).
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next