This is a decommissioned version of ERA which is running to enable completion of migration processes. All new collections and items and all edits to existing items should go to our new ERA instance at https://ualberta.scholaris.ca - Please contact us at erahelp@ualberta.ca for assistance!
- 204 views
- 209 downloads
Restitution, juristic reasons and palm tree justice: Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co
-
- Author(s) / Creator(s)
-
The article focuses on the Canadian law of unjust enrichment. The Canadian law of unjust enrichment is plagued by two related problems: (a) juristic reasons, and (b) discretionary justice. The first problem stems from the fact that different legal systems employ different strategies for determining the availability of relief. The common law traditionally has required proof of an unjust factor i.e. a positive reason for allowing recovery. In the paradigm case of a mistaken payment, for example, relief is available only because the plaintiff's intention to confer a benefit upon the defendant was impaired by error. The second problem facing the Canadian action in unjust enrichment concerns a basic question of judicial philosophy.
-
- Date created
- 2004
-
- Subjects / Keywords
-
- Type of Item
- Article (Published)
-
- License
- © 2004 Canadian Business Law Journal. This article has been reproduced with the permission of the CBLJ.