Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

The plaintiff's expense in restitution: difficulties in the High Court

Article Abstract:

The Australian High Court had difficulty in interpreting the "at the plaintiff's expense" component of the test for unjust enrichment under the law of restitution. In Trident General Insurance Co. v. McNeice Brothers, the requisite subtractive enrichment was present, but the plaintiff was not the one that lost the benefit of the payments. In Commissioner of Revenue v. Royal Insurance Australia Ltd., the court rejected the argument that the plaintiff was not harmed because the tax was passed on to customers. In Warman International Ltd. v. Dwyer, the court explicitly dismissed the need for a detriment to the plaintiff.

Author: McInnes, Mitchell
Publisher: LBC Information Services
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1995
Cases

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Contractual services, restitution and the avoidance of bad bargains

Article Abstract:

The ruling of the Court of Appeals of New South Wales in Renard Constructions (ME) Pty. v. Minister for Public Works is flawed because it provides the innocent party in a contractual breach with the release from a bad bargain. The Court ruled that the plaintiff, who had exercised a repudiary breach, was entitled to a choice of remedies that included restitution, with the services being valued at fair market value. The ruling is inconsistent with other case law that has held that restitution is inappropriate when complete or substantial performance has been provided.

Author: McInnes, Mitchell
Publisher: LBC Information Services
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1995
Remedies, Breach of contract

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Does "good faith" in s. 51AC of the Trade Practices Act deny self-interest?

Article Abstract:

Prohibitions against unconscionable conduct in Australia's Trade Practices Act are discussed. The article covered the prohibition on unconscionable conduct by corporations where the goods or services involved in the transaction are for personal or domestic use and the prohibitions on such conduct with respect to commercial transactions generally and small businesses.

Author: McInnes, Mitchell
Publisher: LBC Information Services
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1999
Australia, Interpretation and construction, Commercial law

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Australia, Laws, regulations and rules, Restitution, Unjust enrichment
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Employee plans: guidelines for the resolution of qualification violations. Administrative appeals of employee plan cases within the Internal Revenue Service
  • Abstracts: SEC revises executive compensation reporting rules. Executive compensation disclosure - the new rules. Proxy statement disclosure in the SEC's new summary compensation table
  • Abstracts: Passing marks for sex ed; courts reject constitutional challenges to school programs. Witnesses to tragedy; courts open door to more suits for negligent infliction of emotional distress
  • Abstracts: Dispute resolution and avoidance techniques in the construction industry. Construction dispute prevention comes of age
  • Abstracts: Giving the articles of association their legal effect: some interesting comments from the High Court of Australia
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.