Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCutts, T
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-14T06:06:23Z
dc.date.available2020-12-14T06:06:23Z
dc.date.issued2020-02-01
dc.identifier.citationCutts, T. (2020). Materially identical to mistaken payment. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 33 (1), pp.31-57. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2019.29.
dc.identifier.issn0841-8209
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11343/254105
dc.description.abstractMistaken payment is the ‘core case’ of unjust enrichment, and it has had a powerful effect on the development of this area of private law. For Peter Birks, unjust enrichment was simply ‘the law of all events materially identical to mistaken payment’—to be shaped through a process of abstraction from that core case. But this begs the question: how do we work out what counts as ‘materially identical’ to mistaken payment? The most obvious starting point, and that which Birks chose, is the central characteristic of money: money is valuable. Thus, ‘the law of all events materially identical to mistaken payments’ is ‘the law of all events that unjustly enrich one party at another’s expense’. In this article, I argue that this starting point is incorrect. Rather than looking for some factual similarity between mistaken payment and other events, we should identify the role that money plays in justifying restitution. And what justifies restitution in the core case is not the ‘value’ or ‘benefit’ that money confers; rather, it is a defect in the legal transaction that links payor with payee. The payee is not liable because she has been ‘enriched’, but because she is the counterparty to a legal transaction which exhibits traits that there are institutional reasons to disavow. Just like contract and torts, the role of value is secondary: where correcting the injustice in specie is impossible or undesirable, the defendant must pay whichever sum will most nearly achieve that goal.
dc.languageen
dc.publisherCambridge University Press (CUP)
dc.titleMaterially identical to mistaken payment
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/cjlj.2019.29
melbourne.affiliation.departmentMelbourne Law School
melbourne.source.titleCanadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence: an international journal of legal thought
melbourne.source.volume33
melbourne.source.issue1
melbourne.source.pages31-57
melbourne.elementsid1460814
melbourne.openaccess.urlhttp://eprints.lse.ac.uk/100405/1/Materially_Identical_to_Mistaken_Payment_footnotes_ed_.docx
melbourne.openaccess.statusAccepted version
melbourne.contributor.authorCutts, Tatiana
dc.identifier.eissn2056-4260
melbourne.accessrightsAccess this item via the Open Access location


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record