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:
Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:14:38 -0500
Re:
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).

  

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 !