contract remains dominated by the ﬁgure of Lon Fuller. Over the forty years
since what has become the argument for partial disgorgement of gains was put
forward in Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd vParkside Homes Ltd,3the English law of
remedies has undergone fundamental questioning. If, in light of this, we now
seek to markedly improve upon that law, we can do so only if we ask if it is
possible to go beyond Fuller; to be better than Fuller.
The basic architecture of Fuller’s conception of remedies is, of course, the
three interests model set out in his 1936–1937 paper written with his then
student William Perdue Jr on ‘The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages’.4
Though my own understanding of remedies remains based on Fuller and
Perdue’s thinking,5it will be argued that the three interests model fails to
coherently combine the contractual interests properly so-called, expectation and
reliance, with the restitution interest, and that this can be remedied only by the
complete elimination of the restitution interest from the law of contract to leave
a two interests model of remedies for breach of contract. This two interests
model has the attraction that it brings an essential coherence to Fuller’s archi-
tecture. However, it is put forward, not in pursuit of coherence in itself, but
because this coherence has the practical result of improving the remedies for
breach by placing them on a purely contractual basis.
SOME LOGICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE THREE
By focusing on the inadequacy of the relationship of the expectation and reliance
interests to the restitution interest, I would not wish to be thought to believe that
the three interests model has no other inadequacies. A now enormous literature
testiﬁes to the fact that it certainly does, though, of course, to some extent this
simply reﬂects the signiﬁcance the model has rightly assumed. No doubt the way
it has perpetuated a confusion between ‘reliance’ as a doctrine of liability and
‘reliance’ as one part of the doctrine of remedies is the most important of these.6
But within the doctrine of remedies itself, it has been incontrovertibly argued
that Fuller and Perdue’s understanding of the reliance interest, particularly of its
relationship to the expectation interest, is also inadequate.7As it cannot be argued
3  1 WLR 798
(Ch D). Though it is now largely a matter of legal history, the deve-
lopment of the Wrotham Park remedy is set out in D. Campbell and D. Harris, ‘In Defence
of Breach: A Critique of Restitution and the Performance Interest’ (2002) 22 Legal Studies
4 L. L. Fuller and W. R. Perdue Jr, ‘The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages’ (1936) 46 Yale Law
Journal 52 and (1937) 46 Yale Law Journal 373.
5 D. Harris et al, Remedies in Contract and Tort (Cambridge: CUP, 2nd ed, 2005) 6.
6 This is the basis of Atiyah’s difﬁculties with the ‘pure expectation’ award of damages: P. S. Atiyah,
‘Contracts, Promises and the Law of Obligations’ in Essays on Contract (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
rev ed, 1990) 33–34.
7 eg in the US, R. Craswell, ‘Against Fuller and Perdue’ (2000) 67 University of Chicago Law Review
99 and in the Commonwealth, D. McLaughlan, ‘Reliance Damages for Breach of Contract’
 New Zealand Law Review 417. Professor McLaughlan regards the reliance interest as
‘redundant’: D. McLaughlan, ‘The Redundant Reliance Interest in Contract Damages’ (2011)
127 Law Quarterly Review 23.
© 2015 The Author. The Modern Law Review © 2015 The Modern Law Review Limited. 297(2015) 78(2) MLR 296–323