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:
Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:12:01 -0500
Re:
Waiver of tort

 

One might also suggest that the sentence, "The appellants’ submission ignores the conceptual basis of tort law, which is restitutionary" is at least obscure and arguably an absurd thing for the Ont CA to say.

 

On 26/2/07 22:36, "David Cheifetz" wrote:

Nobody did. Apologies for a confusing post. I mentioned 3Com v. Zorin because the CA didn't see fit to suggest in para 57 that the only reason why proof of actual loss wasn't required was that the cause of action was deceit. That distinction might be implicit in "It was not necessary, in the circumstances of this case, to introduce evidence of a specific alternative third party buyer" but the statement was followed by this sentence which seems to be the explanation for why it was not necessary: "The appellants’ submission ignores the conceptual basis of tort law, which is restitutionary." That justification would apply equally to negligence. However, to be fair, the case wasn't negligence and there's no need to read the case as extending to negligence.


<== 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 !