Restitutionary Remedies in Three-Party Cases: A Comparative Perspective
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
obligation owed by the defendant to the claimant which is constituted by dealings with third parties which have generated a profit in the hands of the defendant.Though one could obviously characterize these as "three-party" situations, in the sense that the source of the defendant's unjust enrichment is a third party, I will not do so for present purposes on the basis that these are situations in which the unjust retention directly results from the wrongdoing of the defendant who has breached a duty owed to the plaintiff.The present topic concerns three-party situations in a rather different sense.These are situations where a third party has transferred value to the defendant, which, for reasons of justice, ought to have been or should now be transferred to the plaintiff.As we shall see, such cases may or may not involve wrongful conduct by the third party.Where the value has been transferred to the defendant, however, the plaintiff might be said to have a better claim to the enrichment than does the defendant.These types of cases are much less discussed in the literature and, I suspect, much less familiar to the profession at large.Nonetheless, there are, both historically and in contemporary circumstances, many cases of this kind and their proper resolution as a matter of some interest.This paper will examine the traditional English position concerning such claims and contrast that doctrine with more recent developments in American and Canadian restitutionary doctrine.The principal point of comparison is that American and Canadian doctrine allows restitutionary relief in a much broader range of three-party cases.With particular reference to Canadian doctrine, it is of interest that there appear to be a substantial number of Canadian cases providing relief in situations quite similar to those found in American law.This appears to be the case notwithstanding the fact that there is no obvious evidence of American influence in the sense of reliance on American authorities in the development of Canadian law in three-party cases.A complication found in Canadian law finds no parallel in American doctrine and, for a time at least, threatened to preclude a recovery in at least some three-party cases.Nonetheless, a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, Moore v. Sweet, 2 to be further considered below, has flatly rejected this possibility, and it now appears that Canadian and American doctrine run along quite similar lines.This might be considered to be some evidence in support of the proposition that there is merit in the position taken in the American and Canadian cases which, in turn, might provide a basis for reconsideration of some aspects of English doctrine.The paradigm two-party case, for pedagogical purposes at least, is the simple case of a mistaken payment.The claimant has paid money to the defendant as a result of a mistake of some kind.For centuries, the common 2 Moore v.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,016 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».