MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Re-examining Contract and Unjust Enrichment: Anglo-Canadian Perspectives (

2007· book· en· W1583969317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paula Giliker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnjust enrichmentRestitutionLawMistakeCommon lawBreach of contractUnconscionabilityPolitical scienceFiduciaryDoctrineDamagesLaw and economicsSociologyDuty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foreword Preface List of Contributors Table of Cases Table of Legislative Instruments Chapter 1 Diverging or Converging - The Ongoing Relationship of the Common Laws of England and Canada Paula Giliker Part 1: The Boundaries of Contract and Unjust Enrichment Chapter 2 The Relation Between Contract and Unjust Enrichment Stephen Waddams Chapter 3 Unjust Factors, Juristic Reasons and Contracts in Anglo-Canadian Law Mitchell McInnes Chapter 4 Mistake in Contract Law and in Unjust Enrichment Kate Bracegirdle Chapter 5 No Longer taken to be Cognisant of the Law? Mistake of Law in Contract and Restitution in Canada and England Catharine MacMillan Chapter 6 The Fiduciary Concept, Contract Law, and Unjust Enrichment: A Functional Comparison Leonard I. Rotman Chapter 7 Drafting an Irish Frustrated Contracts Act: Lessons from British Columbia Cliona Kelly Chapter 8 Once More unto the Breach: Remedies for the Non-Payment of Insurance Claims after Blake James Davey Chapter 9 Choice of Law for Void Contracts and their Restitutionary Aftermath: The Putative Governing Law of the Contract Adeline Chong Part 2: Clarifying the Law of Unjust Enrichment Chapter 10 Implied Contract and the Taxonomy of Unjust Enrichment Duncan Sheehan Chapter 11 Contract, Unjust Enrichment and Restitution: The Significance of Classification Peter Jaffey Part 3: Clarifying the Law of Contract Chapter 12 The Purpose of the Doctrine of Presumed Undue Infl uence Jesse Elvin Chapter 13 Awarding Damages for Distress and Loss of Reputation in England and Canada Jill Poole Part 4: Contract and Unjust Enrichment - Reconciling Different Jurisdictional Approaches Chapter 14 Specifi c Performance in the Common and Civil Law: Some Lessons for Harmonisation Lucinda Miller Chapter 15 'Compensation' and 'Indemnity' under the Agency Regulations: How the Common Law System Copes with the Invasion of Civilian Concepts Robert Bradgate and Severine Saintier Index

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207