Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:06:35.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflicts of Law in Matters of Unjustifiable Enrichment1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

H. C. Gutteridge  and
K. Lipstein
Get access

Extract

The situation which is created when rules of quasi-contract are in conflict has been neglected by English writers and has also received little attention on the Continent. It is possible, no doubt, to explain this lack of interest on the ground that the question is not one which occurs very often in practice. The various Continental rules relating to quasi-contract do not, in substance, differ widely from one another. Further, the somewhat narrow view of quasi-contractual liability hitherto taken by English law has probably discouraged foreign creditors from pressing claims of this type in our Courts.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1939 , pp. 80 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 See Diekeson, Leigh v. (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 60.Google Scholar

3 See Winfield, The Province of the Law of Tort; Lord Wright, Sinclair v. Brougham, 6 C. L. J. 305; Jackson, The History of Quasi-Contract; Friedmann, , ‘The Principle of Unjust Enrichment’, Canadian Bar Eeview, xvi, 247, 369;Google ScholarLogan, , ‘Restatement on Restitution’, 2 Modern Law Eeview, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. Holdsworth, ‘Unjustifiable Enrichment’, 55 L. Q. R. 37; Gutteridge and David, ‘Unjustified Enrichment’, 5 C. L. J. 204.