Proprietary Remedies in Insolvency: A Comparison of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment with English and Commonwealth Law
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Table of ContentsI. Introduction 1230II. Mistake 1234A. The Restatement 1234B. English and Commonwealth Law 1238C. Discussion 1244III. Misrepresentation (1) 1246A. The Restatement 1247B. English and Commonwealth Law 1248IV. Misrepresentation (2) 1250A. The Restatement 1250B. English and Commonwealth Law 1250C. Discussion 1252V. Wrongful Gains 1255A. The Restatement 1255B. English and Commonwealth Law 1259C. Discussion 1262VI. Specific Performance 1263A. United States Law 1263B. English and Commonwealth Law 1265C. Discussion 1267VII. Conclusion 1268I. IntroductionAt its Annual Meeting in May 2010, American Law Institute (ALI) approved Restatement of Law (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment in its final form. The vote marked end of project that had run for more than ten years and that involved progressive release and revision of seven tentative draft documents under direction of Reporter, Professor Andrew KuIl. The Restatement covers every aspect of law of restitution, drawing together wide range of doctrines and principles and exploring inter-face between restitution and other parts of private law, including contract, tort, property, and law of fiduciary obligations. To borrow ALI Director Lance Liebman's words, we can see in Restatement a structure that holds together - as if this were natural and not manmade - an extraordinary variety of legal disputes and legal doctrines.1 The Restatement traverses host of [fascinating] legal controversies and it sends an important message about the continued vitality of common law as vehicle for applying contemporary values to provocative disputes.2The Restatement also serves an important educational function because, as Kull himself has remarked, [s]carcely anyone in United States understands what restitution is about . . . [mjost law schools gave up teaching restitution generation ago, and many judges and practitioners are not familiar with its general principles.3 This regrettable state of affairs has important imphcations for commercial law at large, and bankruptcy law in particular, because [l]ack of familiarity with restitutionary elements of background [commercial law] rules results in predictable distortion of commercial law.4 Liebman predicts that lawyers, judges and professors will use [the Restatement].5 He seems to have mainly United States audience in mind, but there is also much lawyers in other common law countries could learn from uie Restatement It has become common for courts in England, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to look to one another's case law for guidance, but reliance on United States law is much less common. …
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».