Is the Law of Contract Seriously Defective if the Court is Unable to Award Restitutionary Damages for Breach of Contract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is commonly believed that the general rule is that damages for breach of contract are compensatory not restitutionary. So, the damages are measured by the loss to the plaintiff not by the gain to the defendant. However, there are many academic writings which have advocated that restitutionary damages should be available as general default rule in breach of contract, because it is able to provide adequate remedy to plaintiff when compensatory damages are inadequate. The A-G vs. Blake is the remarkable case which embodied by Hendrix case, posits the general restitutionary remedy. Blake has challenged the traditional approach of damages and signaled a trend of establishing restitutionary damages. The proponents of this point always purport ‘the interests of justice’ for plaintiff, however, they misunderstand the purpose of law of contract which is to balance the interests between claimant and defendant so that to maximize the social profits. Accordingly, the restitutionary damages are an objection to efficient breach in economic view because the restitution and account of profit (disgorgement) will deprive the defendant’s incentive to maximize profits and the claimant’s desire to minimize loss. So, the virtue of damages for breach of contract would be diminished if the general restitution relief is established. Key Words: Restitutionary damages; Compensatory damages; Freedom of contract; Efficient breach
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".