Talk:Restitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| Top | This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale. | |
I'm thinking about doing a fairly drastic overhaul of this page, which I think is severely lacking in structure.
The first thing I would like to do is make clearer the distinction between "restitution for wrongs" and "unjust enrichment by subtraction".
Secondly, I would like to discuss the five principal issues that need to be considered in an action based on unjust enrichment. These are (1) Was the defendant enriched? (2) Was the enrichment at the claimant's expense? (3) Was the enrichment unjust? (4)Does the defendant have a defence? (5) What kinds of remedy are open to the claimant?
Does anyone have any objection to me doing this?
I should point out that I am an English lawyer and I am not familiar with the American law of restitution. However, I do believe that the above 5-stage analysis is at least compatible with Australian law and Canadian law. If what I am proposing would be misleading in America please let me know!
- Go for it fella. Did the Aussies go off on a completely different frolic of their own? Either way, suggest explictly identifying as Brit law. RealityCheck 12:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok. As promised, I have redone this page. I have also nearly finished preparing my overhaul of the unjust enrichment page and should complete that within the next week. Comments, suggestions and complaints on the new restitution page welcome. I saved a copy of the old page as it was immediately before I removed it, so we can revert to the old version if the consensus of opinion demands it. User:Tinnymeup 00:01, 23 January 2006
