Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message      Back to index      Next message ==>
Sender:
Lionel Smith
Date:
Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:56:11
Re:
Taylor v. Dickens

 

Eoin O'Dell wrote,

Reluctant as I am to utter (once again !) the immortal words "There is an Irish case ...", nonetheless, I want to mention not one, but three, in the context of Taylor v. Dickens.

Of course there are also Canadian cases. We should remember that what may be the first Commonwealth case to recognize a claim in unjust enrichment was Deglman [1954] 3 DLR 785 (SCC), which was a quantum meruit claim against an estate for services rendered. More recently Single v. Macharski Estate [1996] 3 WWR 23, [1997] RLR 61 (Man CA). It may well be that these cases are good examples of the new model free acceptance, ie secret acceptance, but then again the unconscionability may be supervening rather than initial. (What?)

 

Lionel


<== Previous message      Back to index      Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !