No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Defence of “Change of Position” in English and German Law of Unjust Enrichment
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
In its § 142(1) the American Restatement of the Law of Restitution provides that “[t]he right of a person to restitution from another because of a benefit received is terminated or diminished if, after the receipt of the benefit, circumstances have so changed that it would be inequitable to require the other to make full restitution.” The notion that the recipient of an unjustified benefit must in principle return not more than the enrichment that has actually “survived” in his hands, is not only fundamental to the American law of restitution, but can also be found in English and German law.
- Type
- Private Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2004 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 Scott, A.W. and Seavy, W.A., Restatement of the Law of Restitution, Quasi Contracts and Constructive Trusts (St. Paul: American Law Institute 1937).Google Scholar
2 “According to what is right and good.”Google Scholar
3 2 Burr. 1005, 1010 (1760).Google Scholar
4 In the American terminology, “change of circumstances.”Google Scholar
5 Most relevant statutory provisions can be found in English translation at http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/index.html (German Law Archive). Translations in this article are based on that source. All references in this paper are made to the BGB if not otherwise indicated. Roman numerals represent a paragraph, Arabic numerals a sentence. ‘s.’ means sentence if a section is not divided into paragraphs.Google Scholar
6 Meier, , Mistaken Payments in Three-Party Situations: A German View of English Law, 58 C.L.J. 567 (1999).Google Scholar
7 Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd., A.C. 32, 61 (1943).Google Scholar
8 Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution 3 (Clarendon Press 1999). See also, Zimmermann, , Unjustified Enrichment: The Modern Civilian Approach, 15 O.J.L.S. 413 (1995).Google Scholar
9 “As much as it was worth.” When there is a sale of goods without a specified price, the law implies a promise from the buyer to the seller that the former will pay the latter as much as the goods were worth.Google Scholar
10 “As much as he has deserved.” When a person renders a service without a specified price, there is an implied promise from the employer to the worker that he will pay him for his services, as much as he may deserve or merit.Google Scholar
11 Zweigert & Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law 551 (T. Weir trans., Oxford University Press 3rd ed. 1998); Gallo, Unjust Enrichment: A Comparative Analysis, 40 A.J.C.L. 431 (1992).Google Scholar
12 United Australia Ltd. v. Barclays Bank Ltd., A.C. 1, 26 (1941). (Lord Atkin); Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd., A.C. 32, 63 (1943). (Lord Wright).Google Scholar
13 Dickson, , The Law of Restitution in the Federal Republic of Germany: A Comparison with English Law, 36 I.C.L.Q. 752 (1987).Google Scholar
14 See, Trott, Hambley v., 98 E.R. 1136 (1776). (Lord Mansfield); Martinek, Der Weg des Common Law zur allgemeinen Bereicherungsklage. Ein später Sieg des Pomponius?, 47 RabelsZ 289 (1983).Google Scholar
15 2 A.C. 548 (1991).Google Scholar
16 A.C. 70 (1993).Google Scholar
17 Goff & Jones, The Law of Restitution para. 1-016 (Sweet & Maxwell 6th ed. 2002); Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution 9 (Clarendon Press 1999); Chen-Wishart, Unjust Factors and the Resti-Restitutionary Response 20 O.J.L.S. 557 (2000); Dickson, Unjust Enrichment Claims: A Comparative Overview 54 C.L.J. 105 (1995).Google Scholar
18 Gorman, Lipkin (A Firm) v. Karpnale Ltd., 2 A.C. 548, 578 (1991). (Lord Goff); Goff & Jones, The Law of Restitution para. 1-001 (Sweet & Maxwell 6th ed. 2002); Birks, An Introduction to the Law of Restitution 17 (Clarendon Press 1985) (but see my next fn.); Hedley, A Critical Introduction to Restitution 11 (Butterworths 2001).Google Scholar
19 Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution 6-17 (Clarendon Press 1999); Birks, “Misnomer” in Cornish, et al. (eds.), Restitution: Past, Present and Future – Essays in Honour of Gareth Jones 1 (Hart 1998); The idea of “quadration” stems from Birks in An Introduction to the Law of Restitution. Birks, An Introduction to the Law of Restitution 17 (Clarendon Press 1985).Google Scholar
20 Nevertheless, for the sake of simplicity “restitution” and “unjust enrichment” will be used synonymously in this paper.Google Scholar
21 Cf., Dickson, The Law of Restitution in the Federal Republic of Germany: A Comparison with English Law, 36 I.C.L.Q. 760 (esp. fn. 42) (1987).Google Scholar
22 Birks, , At the Expense of the Claimant: Direct and Indirect Enrichment in English Law, Oxford U. Comparative Law Forum 1 http://ouclf.iuscomp.org, after n. 4 (2000).Google Scholar
23 Markesinis, et al., The German Law of Obligations. Volume 1. The Law of Contracts and Restitution 711 (Clarendon Press 1997).Google Scholar
24 Zimmermann, and du Plessis, , Basic Features of the German Law of Unjustified Enrichment, Restitution Law Review 18 (1994).Google Scholar
25 Id. at 24; Larenz and Canaris, Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts. Zweiter Band. Besonderer Teil. 2. Halbband 129 (C.H. Beck 13th ed. 1994).Google Scholar
26 E.g., Goff, & Jones, , The Law of Restitution (Sweet & Maxwell 6th ed. 2002); Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution (Clarendon Press 1999); Cf., Zweigert and Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law 555 (T. Weir trans., Oxford University Press 3rd ed. 1998).Google Scholar
27 Cf., Krebs, , In Defence of Unjust Factors, Oxford U. Comparative Law Forum 3 http://ouclf.iuscomp.org 3, after n. 12 (2000).Google Scholar
28 Cf., Zweigert and Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law 557 (Weir, T. trans., Oxford University Press 3rd ed. 1998); Riesenhuber, Englisches Restitutionenrecht “in einer Nussschale”, Juristische Ausbildung (Jura) 659 (2002). But, see also §§ 817, 819 II.Google Scholar
29 Zimmermann, & du Plessis, , Basic Features of the German Law of Unjustified Enrichment, Restitution Law Review 38 (1994); Dawson, Erasable Enrichment in German Law, 61 Boston U.L.R. 271 (1981).Google Scholar
30 BGHZ (Decisions of the Federal Court of Justice in civil matters, with volume and starting page) 1, 75 (81); see also BGHZ 55, 128 (131).Google Scholar
31 Cf., Zweigert, & Kötz, , An Introduction to Comparative Law 583 (T. Weir trans., Oxford University Press 3rd ed. 1998); Dickson, The Law of Restitution in the Federal Republic of Germany: A Comparison with English Law, 36 I.C.L.Q. 785 (1987).Google Scholar
32 Larenz, & Canaris, , Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts. Zweiter Band. Besonderer Teil. 2. Halbband 295 (C.H. Beck 13th ed. 1994); Hellwege, The Scope of Application of Change of Position in the Law of Unjust Enrichment: A Comparative Study, Restitution Law Review 93 (1999); Zimmermann, & du Plessis, , Basic Features of the German Law of Unjustified Enrichment, Restitution Law Review 39 (fn. 202) (1994).Google Scholar
33 See s. 1(2), (3) of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943. A more general defence has been available in New Zealand by virtue of s. 94B of the Judicature Act 1908, cf., Watts, Restitution and Change of Position, 115 L.Q.R. 199 (1999).Google Scholar
34 Goff, & Jones, , The Law of Restitution para. 40-001 (Sweet & Maxwell 6th ed. 2002).Google Scholar
35 2 Burr 1005 (1760).Google Scholar
36 Baylis v. Bishop of London, 1 Ch. 127 (1913); Durrant v. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England and Wales, LR 6 Q.B.D. 234 (1880-81).Google Scholar
37 I.e., An agent passes on the benefit he received to his principal. Cf., British American Continental Bank v. British Bank for Foreign Trade, 1 K.B. 328 (1926); Burrows, The Law of Restitution 480 (Butterworths 1993).Google Scholar
38 The London and River Plate Bank Ltd. v. The Bank of Liverpool Ltd., 1 Q.B. 7 (1896).Google Scholar
39 Avon County Council v. Howlett, 1 All E.R. 1073 (1983).Google Scholar
40 2 AC 548 (1991).Google Scholar
41 Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale, 2 AC 548, 580 (1991).Google Scholar
42 Id. at 558. (Lord Bridge).Google Scholar
43 Id. at 580. (Lord Goff).Google Scholar
44 Cf., Nolan, Change of Position, in Laundering and Tracing 135 (Birks ed., Clarendon Press 1995); Goff & Jones, The Law of Restitution para. 40-003 (Sweet & Maxwell 6th ed. 2002).Google Scholar
45 Cf., the example of Lord Templeman in Lipkin Gorman 2 A.C. 548, 560 (1991).Google Scholar
46 R.G.Z. (Decisions of the former Imperial Court in civil matters) 75, 361.Google Scholar
47 B.G.H., Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht (M.D.R.) 1957, 598. Further examples can be found in Zweigert & Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law 583 (T. Weir trans., Oxford University Press 3rd ed. 1998).Google Scholar
48 R.G.Z. 65, 292. Criticised in Dawson, Erasable Enrichment in German Law, 61 Boston University Law Review 279 (1981).Google Scholar
49 B.G.H., Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (N.J.W.) 1985, 2700.Google Scholar
50 National Westminster Bank Plc. v. Somer International (UK) Ltd., E.W.C.A. Civ. 970, para. 26 (2001). (Potter L.J.); Cf., RBC Dominion Securities Inc. v. Dawson, 111 D.L.R. (4th) 230, para. 43 (1994) (Cameron J.A.).Google Scholar
51 See Larenz, & Canaris, , Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts. Zweiter Band. Besonderer Teil. 2. Halbband 301 (Beck, C.H. 13th ed. 1994); Zimmermann, & du Plessis, , Basic Features of the German Law of Unjustified Enrichment, Restitution Law Review 39 (1994).Google Scholar
52 That is the Australian point of view: ‘[The] central element is that the defendant has acted to his or her detriment on the faith of the receipt.’ David Securities Pty. Ltd. v. Commonwealth Bank of Australia, 175 C.L.R. 353, 385 (1992).Google Scholar
53 Cf., Burrows, The Law of Restitution 427 (Butterworths 1993).Google Scholar
54 Gorman, Lipkin v. Karpnale, , 2 A.C. 548, 580 (1991).Google Scholar
55 Goff & Jones, The Law of Restitution para. 40-003 (Sweet & Maxwell 6th ed. 2002); Burrows, The Law of Restitution 427 (Butterworths 1993); Nolan, Change of Position, in Laundering and Tracing 146 (Birks ed., Clarendon Press 1995); Key, Change of Position, 58 M.L.R. 506, 511 (1995).Google Scholar
56 Scottish Equitable Plc. v. Derby, E.W.C.A. Civ. 369, para. 30 (2001). (Walker J.). See also, South Tyneside MBC v. Svenska International Plc., 1 All E.R. 545, 563 (1995). (Clarke J.).Google Scholar
57 B.G.H.Z. 118, 383, 386.Google Scholar
58 Gorman, Lipkin v. Karpnale, , 2 A.C. 548, 580 (1991).Google Scholar
59 Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution 714 (Clarendon Press 1999); Burrows, The Law of Restitution 428 (Butterworths 1993).Google Scholar
60 Dawson, , Erasable Enrichment in German Law, 61 B.U. L. Rev. 286 (1981); Cf., Markesinis et al., The German Law of Obligations. Volume 1. The Law of Contracts and Restitution 763 (Clarendon Press 1997). For the courts: R.G.Z. 83, 159 (161); BVerwGE (Decisions of the Federal Administrative Court) 8, 261 (270).Google Scholar
61 107 Eng. Rep. 1064, 1067 (1825). Cf., County Council v. Howlett, 1 All E.R. 1073 (1983). Both cases concerned ‘estoppel,’ but are likely to be relevant in a change of position context now.Google Scholar
62 Zweigert & Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law 589 (T. Weir trans., Oxford University Press 3rd ed. 1998).Google Scholar
63 See also, Philip Collins Ltd. v. Davis and Another, 3 All E.R. 808, 827 (2000). (Parker J.).Google Scholar
64 Nolan, , Change of Position, in Laundering and Tracing 172 (Birks ed., Clarendon Press 1995); Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution 725 (Clarendon Press 1999); Larenz & Canaris, Lehrbuch Des Schuldrechts. Zweiter Band. Besonderer Teil. 2. Halbband 301 (C.H. Beck 13th ed. 1994).Google Scholar
65 Larenz & Canaris, id. at 195.Google Scholar
66 Just compare the stringent scheme of §§ 985 and the English institutions of trusts and tracing.Google Scholar
67 Barclays Bank Ltd. v. W. J. Simms Son & Cooke (Southern) Ltd., Q.B. 677, 695 (1980). (Goff J.).Google Scholar
68 Cf., Nolan, Change of Position, in Laundering and Tracing 171 (Birks ed., Clarendon Press 1995).Google Scholar
69 This term stems from Birks, Oxford U. Comparative L. Forum 1 at http://ouclf.iuscomp.org, after n. 1 (2000).Google Scholar
70 For Germany: Markesinis et al., The German Law of Obligations. Volume 1. The Law of Contracts and Restitution 764 (Clarendon Press 1997); Lieb, in Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Band 5. Schuldrecht. Besonderer Teil III §§ 705-853, § 818, para. 56 (Rebmann, et al. eds., Beck, C.H. 3rd ed. 1997). For England: Birks, Restitution – The Future 135; Key, Change of Position, 58 M.L.R. 509 (1995); Hellwege, The Scope of Application of Change of Position in the Law of Unjust Enrichment: A Comparative Study, Restitution Law Review 114 (1999).Google Scholar
71 Larenz, & Canaris, , Lehrbuch Des Schuldrechts. Zweiter Band. Besonderer Teil. 2. Halbband 296, 300 (Beck, C.H. 13th ed. 1994); Lieb, id. at para. 56 a (but see also 68). It should be noted that this approach differs from the aforementioned narrow concept discussed in English law insofar as it only affects expenses, not the object itself.Google Scholar
72 Lieb, , in Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Band 5. Schuldrecht. Besonderer Teil III §§ 705-853, § 818, para. 68 (Rebmann, et al. eds., Beck, C.H. 3rd ed. 1997).Google Scholar
73 B.G.H.Z. 116, 251.Google Scholar
74 Cf., Lieb, in Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Band 5. Schuldrecht. Besonderer Teil III §§ 705-853, § 818, para. 59 a with further references (Rebmann, et al. eds., Beck, C.H. 3rd ed. 1997).Google Scholar
75 The claim is based on § 816 I 1 or § 812 I 1 2nd alt. respectively, so called Eingriffskondiktion, because of the first recipient's encroachment into the owner's property right.Google Scholar
76 Cf., B.G.H.Z. 55, 176, 179; Larenz & Canaris, Lehrbuch Des Schuldrechts. Zweiter Band. Besonderer Teil. 2. Halbband 302 (C.H. Beck 13th ed. 1994); Zimmermann, & du Plessis, , Basic Features of the German Law of Unjustified Enrichment, Restitution Law Review 40 (1994).Google Scholar
77 See Bennett, Greenwood v., Q.B. 195 (1973). This also raises questions of subjective devaluation, which are outside the scope of this paper.Google Scholar
78 Nolan, , Change of Position, in Laundering and Tracing 175 (Birks ed., Clarendon Press 1995) (concerning proprietary claims).Google Scholar
79 See, Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution 725 (Clarendon Press 1999).Google Scholar
80 2 A.C. 548, 558 (Lord Bridge), 568 (Lord Ackner), 579 (Lord Goff, explicitly referring to tracing at 581); Goff & Jones, The Law of Restitution para. 40-001 (Sweet & Maxwell 6th ed. 2002).Google Scholar
81 Id. at 580.Google Scholar
82 Yet this is what Burrows does in The Law of Restitution. Burrows, The Law of Restitution 431 (Butterworths 1993).Google Scholar
83 Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution 727 (Clarendon Press 1999); Hellwege, The Scope of Application of Change of Position in the Law of Unjust Enrichment: A Comparative Study, Restitution Law Review 99 (1999) (arguing, inter alia, with Boardman v. Phipps, 2 A.C. 46 (1967)). See further below E.Google Scholar
84 Goff & Jones, The Law of Restitution para. 40-002 (Sweet & Maxwell 6th ed. 2002); Burrows, The Law of Restitution 431 (Butterworths 1993); Nolan, Change of Position, in Laundering and Tracing 176, 178 (Birks ed., Clarendon Press 1995). See also, Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Islington London Borough Council, A.C. 669, 716 (1996). (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).Google Scholar
85 Cf., Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution 728 (Clarendon Press 1999).Google Scholar
86 Precisely it is a counter-claim; but the effect is the same as a loss of enrichment defence. Cf., in this context Greenwood v. Bennett, Q.B. 195 (1973).Google Scholar
87 Cf., Zweigert & Kötz, An Introduction To Comparative Law 583 (T. Weir trans., Oxford University Press 3rd ed. 1998)); Goff & Jones, The Law of Restitution para. 40-006 (Sweet & Maxwell 6th ed. 2002).Google Scholar
88 B.G.H.Z. 75, 203, 205; 83, 293, 298; Larenz & Canaris, Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts. Zweiter Band. Besonderer Teil. 2. Halbband 314 (C.H. Beck 13th ed. 1994).Google Scholar
89 B.G.H., N.J.W. 1992, 2415, 2417; Lieb, in Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Band 5. Schuldrecht. Besonderer Teil III §§ 705-853, § 819, para. 2 (Rebmann, et al. eds., Beck, C.H. 3rd ed. 1997).Google Scholar
90 Equivalent to ‘No one must be ignorant of the law.’ Cf., Jewell, The Boundaries of Change of Position – A Comparative Study, Restitution Law Review 25 (2000).Google Scholar
91 B.G.H., N.J.W. 1996, 2652, 2653.Google Scholar
92 With the exception of § 818 IV, however. This is overlooked by Goff and Jones in The Law of Restitution. Goff, & Jones, , The Law of Restitution para. 40-007 (esp. fn. 93) (Sweet & Maxwell 6th ed. 2002). See also, Jewell, The Boundaries of Change of Position – A Comparative Study, Restitution Law Review 19 (2000).Google Scholar
93 2 A.C. 548, 558 (1991). (Lord Bridge)Google Scholar
94 Id. at 579 (Lord Goff).Google Scholar
95 Id. at 580 (Lord Goff).Google Scholar
96 Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution 720 (Clarendon Press 1999).Google Scholar
97 Goff, & Jones, , The Law of Restitution para. 40-007 (Sweet & Maxwell 6th ed. 2002); See also, Jewell, The Boundaries of Change of Position – A Comparative Study, Restitution Law Review 43 (2000), in which Jewell wants to include recklessness in the knowledge requirement. There is some judicial support from New Zealand for this proposition: National Bank of New Zealand v. Waitaki International Processing (NI) Ltd., 2 N.Z.L.R. 211 (1999). But, see below.Google Scholar
98 Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution 721 (Clarendon Press 1999); Nolan, Change of Position, in Laundering And Tracing 158 (Birks ed., Clarendon Press 1995).Google Scholar
99 Thomas v. Houston Corbett and Co., N.Z.L.R. 151 (1969); Watts, Restitution and Change of Position, 115 L.Q.R. 199 (1999).Google Scholar
100 See § 142(2) and Comments (c) and (e) in Scott, A.W. & Seavy W.A., Restatement of the Law of Restitution, Quasi Contracts and Constructive Trusts (American Law Institute 1937); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama v. Weitz, 913 F.2d 1544, 1549 (esp. fn. 9) (1990); Zweigert & Kötz, An Introduction To Comparative Law 591 (T. Weir trans., Oxford University Press 3rd ed. 1998); critical Dawson, Erasable Enrichment in German Law, 61 B.u. L. Rev. 304 (1981).Google Scholar
101 Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution 722 (Clarendon Press 1999)); Nolan, Change of Position, in Laundering and Tracing 156 (Birks, ed., Clarendon Press 1995).Google Scholar
102 Burrows, The Law of Restitution 429 (London: Butterworths 1993); Nolan, id.; Key, Change of Position, 58 M.L.R. 515 (1995); See also, the recommendation of the Law Commission for England and Wales, Restitution: Mistakes of Law and Ultra Vires Public Authority Receipts and Payments para. 2.22 (Law Com. No. 227, London: HMSO 1994).Google Scholar
103 The final Court of Appeal for a number of Commonwealth countries.Google Scholar
104 Dextra Bank & Trust Co. Ltd. v. Bank of Jamaica, 1 All E.R. (Commercial Cases) 193, para. 45 (2002).Google Scholar
105 See the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.Google Scholar
106 For Germany: Lieb, , in Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Band 5. Schuldrecht. Besonderer Teil III §§ 705-853, § 818, para. 70 (Rebmann et al. eds., Beck, C.H. 3rd ed. 1997); Jewell, The Boundaries of Change of Position – A Comparative Study, Restitution Law Review 44 (2000). For England: Birks, An Introduction to the Law of Restitution 62 (Clarendon Press 1985); Goff & Jones, The Law of Restitution para. 40-006 (Sweet & Maxwell 6th ed. 2002); Key, Change of Position, 58 M.L.R. 517 (1995); Law Commission for England and Wales, Restitution: Mistakes of Law and Ultra Vires Public Authority Receipts and Payments para. 2.23 (Law Com. No. 227, London: HMSO 1994).Google Scholar
107 This seems to be of no problem for Key.); Key, Change of Position, 58 M.L.R. 516 (1995).Google Scholar
108 Burrows, The Law of Restitution 431 (Butterworths 1993).Google Scholar
109 Critical of this approach: Zimmermann, , Restitution after Termination for Breach of Contract in German Law, Restituion Law Review 24 (1997).Google Scholar
110 ‘The same care that he exercises for his own affairs.'Google Scholar
111 Emphasis added.Google Scholar
112 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Islington LBC, 4 All E.R. 890, 948 (1994). (Hobhouse J.). Emphasis added.Google Scholar
113 1 All E.R. 545, 565 (1995).Google Scholar
114 Burrows, The Law of Restitution 424 (Butterworths 1993).Google Scholar
115 Example from Key, Change of Position, 58 M.L.R. 514 (1995); Nolan, Change of Position, in Laundering And Tracing 165 (Birks ed., Clarendon Press 1995).Google Scholar
116 Cf., Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution 719 (Clarendon Press 1999); Jewell, Change of Position, in Lessons of the Swaps Litigation 275 (Birks, et al. eds., Mansfield Press 2000).Google Scholar
117 Nolan, , Change of Position, in Laundering And Tracing 166 (Birks ed., Clarendon Press 1995); Jewell, id. at 279; Key, Change of Position, 58 M.L.R. 513 (1995).Google Scholar
118 Dextra Bank & Trust Co. Ltd. v. Bank of Jamaica, 1 All E.R. (Commercial Cases) 193, para. 35 (2002); See also Thomas v. Houston Corbett and Co., N.Z.L.R. 151, 164 (1969). (North P.).Google Scholar
119 R.G.Z. 137, 324, 336; B.G.H.Z. 1, 75, 81.Google Scholar
120 Oberverwaltungsgericht Hamburg, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 73, 74 (1988).Google Scholar
121 2 A.C. 548, 580 (1991).Google Scholar
122 If one believes Chen-Wishart, Unjust Factors and the Restitutionary Response, 20 O.J.L.S. 561 (2000), this might be true for England, too.Google Scholar
123 R.G.Z. 54, 137, 141; B.G.H., N.J.W. 1988, 3011; Lieb, in Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Band 5. Schuldrecht. Besonderer Teil III §§ 705-853, § 818, para. 85 (Rebmann, et al. eds., Beck, C.H. 3rd ed. 1997).Google Scholar
124 To the point: Jewell, The Boundaries of Change of Position – A Comparative Study, Restitution Law Review 35 (2000).Google Scholar
125 Equivalent to ‘The loss lies where it falls.'Google Scholar
126 See most notably Larenz & Canaris, Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts. Zweiter Band. Besonderer Teil. 2. Halbband 321 (Beck, C.H. 13th ed. 1994) with further references.Google Scholar
127 Cf., B.G.H.Z. 57, 137, 150; Larenz & Canaris, Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts. Zweiter Band. Besonderer Teil. 2. Halbband 329 (C.H. Beck 13th ed. 1994); Markesinis et al., The German Law of Obligations. Volume 1. The Law of Contracts and Restitution 765 (Clarendon Press 1997).Google Scholar
128 It seems to be controversial whether it is a defence or bar, and whether there is a separate cause of action for the defendant for counter-restitution based on total failure of consideration. But these considerations are of little relevance for the purpose of this paper.Google Scholar
129 Spence v. Crawford, 3 All E.R. 271, esp. 288 (1939). (Lord Wright); Adam v. Newbigging, 13 App. Cas. 308 (1888).Google Scholar
130 This resembles the approach in relation to total failure of consideration, cf., McKendrick, Total Failure of Consideration and Counter-Restitution: Two Issues or One?, in Laundering and Tracing 217(Birks ed., Clarendon Press 1995).Google Scholar
131 In Restitution – The Future 129 (The Federation Press 1992).Google Scholar
132 Burrows, The Law of Restitution 134 (Butterworths 1993).Google Scholar
133 Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co., 3 App. Cas. 1218 (1878); O'Sullivan v. Management Agency and Music Ltd., Q.B. 428 (1985).Google Scholar
134 McKendrick, , Total Failure of Consideration and Counter-Restitution: Two Issues or One?, in Laundering and Tracing 233 (Birks ed., Clarendon Press 1995); Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution 691 (Clarendon Press 1999); Birks, Restitution – The Future 129 (The Federation Press 1992); Burrows, The Law of Restitution 134 (Butterworths 1993).Google Scholar
135 On the contrary, see Smith New Court Securities Ltd. v. Scrimgeour Vickers, 1 W.L.R. 1271, esp. 1280 (1994). (Nourse L.J.).Google Scholar
136 Nolan, Change of Position, in Laundering and Tracing 187 (Birks ed., Clarendon Press 1995).Google Scholar
137 Birks, , Restitution – The Future 128 (The Federation Press 1992).Google Scholar
138 This solution has never gained significant acceptance in Germany, since it would undermine the basic rule of restitution in kind; anyway, the Saldotheorie has clearly overridden such a straightforward approach.Google Scholar
139 See the references to the German approach at para. 40-005.Google Scholar
140 Dawson, , Erasable Enrichment in German Law, 61 B.u. L. Rev. 272 (1981).Google Scholar
You have
Access