Restatement on Restitution: Restatement on Restitution. American Law Institute, 1937. $9.50 net

DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1938.tb00400.x
AuthorD. W. Logan
Published date01 September 1938
Date01 September 1938
RESTATEMENT
ON
RESTlTUmON
I53
RESTATEMENT ON RESTITUTION
RESTA-NT
ON RESTITUTION.
AmerioSn
Lsw
Institub,
1987.
The pioneer work of Professor Winfield
on
Quasi-Contractl and the
resulting controversy in the
Bell Yarda
were followed by
a
period
of seven
lean years in which the only notable contributions
to
the subject were the
article
on
The Doctrilre
of
Unjustij5ed Enrichment
by Professors Gutteridge
and David* and
Mr.
Jackson's
History
of
Qua~i-Contract.~
Whether the
next seven years will live up
to
the biblical precedent
is
as
yet uncerkun.
but the beginning has been most promising.
Three
decisions of the Court
of Appeal' have reopened the dispute and provoked academic reper-
cussions,' while Lord Wright
has
written
an
article' in which he re-examinea
the
ratio decidendi
of
Sinclair
v.
Brougham.'
In
these circumstances, the
appearance of the
Restatement on Restitution@
is most opportune, provided
that
we are not too proud to
take
advantage of American learning
and
experience. The title and the
contents
of
the
Restate.ment
have
been
lucidly explained by the reporters, Professors Seavey and
Scott,
in a recent
article.10 and interesting reviews of it have appeared.ll The latest con-
tribution to the subject is the very comprehensive survey of the
Principle
of
Unjust Enrichment
in
English Law,
by Dr. Friedmann in the
Canadian
Bar Review.la
certainly, when the centenary issue
of
the
Law
Quarimry
Review
appears,
it
will
not
be
possible to relegate Quasi-Contract
to
less
than a page
in
the section
on
C0ntract.m
The most interesting feature of the
Restatement
is
that
it presupposes
the division of Private Law into three branches, contract,
tort
snd resti-
tution. The underlying postulate of the first is that a person
shall
get
what
has been promised to
him,
of the second that a person has a right not
to
be
harmed, and of the third that benefits unjustly acquired
shall
be
disg0rged.l
To
the argument that the principle suggested
as
the
basis
of restitution
is
so
vague
as
to
be
useless, the reporters answeru
that
the
same could
be
said of the basic principles of contract and
tort
in
that
the
law does not require every agreement
to
be performed nor
does
it
award
compensation for every injury sustained. These principles are not intended
Landon,
8
Bell Yard
19
(Nov.
1931)
;
Winfield,
g
id.
32
(May
1932)
;
Stally-
1936.
Craven-Ellis
v.
Canons
Ltd..
[1g36]
2
K.B.
403;
Brook's Wharf
and
Bull
Wharf Ltd.
v.
Goodman Bros.,
[I9371
I
K.B.
534;
Morgan
v.
Ashcroft,
[1938]
I
K.B.
49.
(1937). 53
L.Q.R.
302
(Landon),
447
(Winfield), and
449
(Friedmann);
(1938). 54
L.Q.R.,
24
(RadcMe), and
201
(Allen).
$9.60
net.
1
Province
of
the
Law
of
Tort
(Tagore Lectures,
1930),
Chapter
VII.
brass,
10
id.
18
(Nov.
1932).
'
(1934). 5
C.L.J.
204.
(1938).
6
C.L.J.
305.
'
[I9141
A.C.
398.
@
St. Paul:
American
Law
Institute
Publishers
(1937).
Pp.
xxv
and
1033.
.
-
_.
$9.50.
lo
Restitution
(1938), 54
L.Q.R.
29.
(1937). 51
Haw. L. Rev.
369
(Lord Wright) and
Miss.
L.
J.,
Febr.,
1938
LMr.
Tackson).
Professor
Winfield will contribute a review
to
the
October
usue
of
thg
L.Q,R.'
18
(1938).
16
Can. Bar Rev.,
243. 365.
1'
As
was
done
in
(1935). 51
L.Q.R.
91.
116.
Sn#ra
n.
10
at
31-32.
l6
Id.
at
36.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT