Dyson, Goudkamp & Wilmot-Smith (eds), Defences in Contract
(Hart Publishing, 2017) [FORTHCOMING]
Dyson, Goudkamp & Wilmot-Smith (eds), Defences in
Unjust Enrichment (Hart Publishing, 2016)
This book is the second in a series of essay collections on
defences in private law. It addresses defences to liability
arising in unjust enrichment. The essays are written from a
range of perspectives and methodologies. Some are doctrinal,
others are theoretical, and several offer comparative
insights. The most important defence in this area of the
law, change of position, is addressed in detail, but many
other defences are treated too, as well as the
interrelations between these defences within the law of
unjust enrichment. The essays offer novel claims and ways of
looking at problems in this challenging area of legal study.
click here for publisher's site
Dyson, Goudkamp & Wilmot-Smith (eds), Defences in Tort Law
(Hart Publishing 2015)
This book is the first in a series of essay collections on
defences in private law. The series offers a systematic
treatment of defences as a connected field. Contributions
from some of the world's pre-eminent jurists and scholars
provide insights from several common law jurisdictions. The
present collection explores the links between tort law
defences on a theoretical level, and examines the nature and
scope of individual defences. It will be of value to
academics and practitioners alike.
click here for publisher's site
‘Cooperation, Termination and the Agreed Sum’ in Graham Virgo
and Sarah Worthington (eds), Commercial Remedies: Resolving Controversies
(CUP, 2016) [FORTHCOMING]
‘Choice, Benefits and the Basis of the Market Rule’ [2016]
LMCLQ 202-206
‘Central Issues in the Law of Tort Defences’ in Dyson,
Goudkamp & Wilmot-Smith (eds), Defences in Tort Law (Hart Publishing
2014) (co-written with James Goudkamp & Frederick Wilmot-Smith)
'There is No Breach Date Rule: Mitigation, Difference in Value
and Date of Assessment' (2014) 130 LQR 259-281 (co-written with Adam
Kramer), cited with approval in Hirtenstein v Hill Dickinson LLP [2014] EWHC
2711 (Comm) [117] and [154] (Leggatt J)
'British Westinghouse Revisited' [2012] LMCLQ 412-425
This article revisits the landmark decision of the House of Lords in British
Westinghouse, one hundred years on. It highlights some of the uncertainties that
still attend the doctrine of mitigation and situates the case among more recent
decisions in the law of damages. It is argued that, contrary to conventional
understanding, it is not necessary or plausible to explain British Westinghouse
as an application of the rule that “claimants cannot recover for an avoided
loss”. Instead, the case merely exemplifies the rule that benefits resulting
from reasonable conduct in mitigation are taken into account in the assessment
of damages.
available via
iLaw
'All's Fair in Love and Law: An Analysis of the Common
Intention Constructive Trust' (2008) 4 CSLR 149-166
The article analyses the application of the common intention constructive
trust to disputes involving the family home, as the law stands after Stack v.
Dowden and the numerous recent cases interpreting that decision. It is suggested
that instances of actual unfairness are rarer than often thought, because of the
judiciary's willingness to manipulate the formal rules of the trust in order to
avoid injustice. Criticism should instead be focused on the hidden costs of
allowing fairness to trump formality: a hole in the integrity of the law, and
the spiralling costs of litigation which flow from the complexity of the
doctrine. It is concluded that a statutory scheme is the only way forward for
the law of cohabitation.
click
here for access via Westlaw [ON CAMPUS]
click
here for access via Westlaw [OFF CAMPUS]
Email:
A.D.Summers@lse.ac.uk