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:
Andrew Tettenborn
Date:
Wed, 3 Jan 2007 13:20:32
Re:
2 holiday cases

 

A couple of instructive, and I think entirely unexceptionable, unjust enrichment cases over the holiday period.

(1) The first is actually very sad. A company, Farepak, runs a Christmas club. You pay so much per month to Farepak's agents (who duly pay Farepak) and you get a hamper of goodies etc on the big day. But then Farepak goes belly-up in October, owing the Revenue a tidy sum.

Britain's third world banking bureaucracy is such that it can't stop its agents paying something like £1 million received from customers into its accounts over the next few days. But it does its best by issuing an immediate "trust deed" declaring trusts over future receipts in favour of the customers.

Now, clearly the customers can't have a Christmas hamper: but can they perhaps get their money instead? They argue (1) a Quistclose trust; (2) unconscionability under Neste Oy v Barclays; (3) the trust deed; and (4) ex parte James. But not with much success. Quistclose won't run for lack of an obligation of segregated accounting. Neste Oy is approved for the sake of argument, but doesn't help because here the agents were Farepak's agents and hence the money was received when the agents themselves got it, ie when company was a going concern. The trust deed is probably an unlawful preference; and there is nothing dishonourable under ex p James in an unsecured creditor getting what the law gives him, even unfairly.

See Farepak Foods and Gifts Ltd & Ors v Revenue and Customs & Anor Rev 1 [2006] EWHC 3272 (Ch) (18 December 2006).

(2) Does an underwriter suing a wrongdoer under its subrogation rights have to take steps which it, but not the assured himself, could have taken to mitigate its loss? No, and very rightly so. See Bee v Jenson [2006] EWHC 3359 (Comm) (21 December 2006). I couldn't have put it better myself.

Happy New Year

Andrew

--
Andrew Tettenborn MA LLB
Bracton Professor of Law
University of Exeter, England

Tel: 01392-263189 / +44-392-263189 (outside UK)
Cellphone: 07870-130528 / +44-7870-130528 (outside UK)
Fax: 01392-263196 / +44-392-263196 (outside UK)

Snailmail: School of Law,
University of Exeter,
Amory Building,
Rennes Drive,
Exeter EX4 4RJ
England

Exeter Law School homepage: http://www.law.ex.ac.uk
My homepage: http://www.law.ex.ac.uk/staff/tettenborn.shtml

LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law (Ambrose Bierce, 1906).


<== 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 !