Proprietary Remedies in Insolvency: A Comparison of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment with English and Commonwealth Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".