'The Double Lives of Property' Jurisprudence Volume 2,
Number 1, June 2011 , pp. 205-216 (45)
'Intention, mistakes and resulting trusts' in C Mitchell,
Constructive and Resulting Trusts (Hart Publishing, 2010).
Constructive and resulting trusts have a long history in
English law, and the law which governs them continues to develop as they are
pressed into service to perform a wide variety of different functions, for
example, to support the working of express trusts and other fiduciary
relationships, to allocate family property rights, and to undo the consequences
of commercial fraud. However, while their conceptual flexibility makes them
enormously useful, it also makes them hard to understand. In the twelve essays
collected in this volume, the authors shed new light on various aspects of the
law governing constructive and resulting trusts, revisiting current
controversies, bringing new historical material to the fore, and offering new
theoretical perspectives.
click here for publisher's site
'Treating like cases alike: principle and classification in private law' in A
Robertson and HW Tang (eds), The Goals of Private Law (Hart Publishing, 2009)
This collection of essays focuses on one of the most hotly
contested issues in private law scholarship in the last 20 years: the function
and purposes of private law. A large and influential body of scholarship is
based on the idea that private law is essentially an instrument of regulation,
and therefore ought to be shaped primarily or exclusively by external policy
goals. Another highly influential body of scholarship, based on conceptions of
corrective justice and rights, argues that policy has no legitimate role to play
in private law. This collection asks whether private law can legitimately pursue
external goals and analyses what goals private law might be said to pursue. It
also asks whether the pursuit of such goals can be accommodated within the
constraints of private law litigation, which must do justice to the individual
plaintiff and defendant before the court. The starting point is the question
whether the function of private law ultimately provides a basis for
distinguishing it from public law. The book then considers the role of
instrumental goals, the role of policy considerations and the relationship
between policy goals and individual rights across the whole of private law. The
book then considers the identification, legitimacy and role of goals at the
level of individual categories of private law, namely: tort law, unjust
enrichment, equity and trusts, contract law and remedies.
click here for publisher's site
'What is unjust enrichment?' (2009) 29 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
2009, 29(2), 215-243
That there exists a law of restitution concerned
with reversing unjust enrichments is widely considered to be
uncontroversial. However, the once orthodox view that unjust
enrichment explains all instances of restitutionary liability is
fast becoming a minority position. Indeed, the ability of ‘unjust
enrichment’ to account for all restitutionary claims has been
doubted by many of those who fought most strongly for its
recognition as an independent head or source of liability, chief
amongst these Professor Peter Birks. Because of this, while there is
widespread acceptance that unjust enrichment plays some
role within the law of restitution, there is considerable
uncertainty as to what this exact role is, so much so that what is
meant by unjust enrichment can be seen to be in doubt. Beginning
with an examination of Birks' understanding of unjust enrichment and
the classificatory scheme into which it slots, this article
addresses the question of what role a conception of unjust
enrichment can and should play in presenting and justifying the law
of restitution.
click
here for access via Westlaw [ON CAMPUS]
click
here for access via Westlaw [OFF CAMPUS]
'Property, unjust enrichment and defective transfers' in R. Chambers, C. Mitchell and J. Penner (eds),
Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Unjust Enrichment
(Oxford University Press, 2009)
This volume takes stock of the rapid changes to the
law of unjust enrichment over the last decade. It offers a set of
original contributions from leading private law theorists examining
the philosophical foundations of the law. The essays consider the
central questions raised by demarcating unjust enrichment as a
separate area of private law - including how its normative
foundations relate to those of other areas of private law, how the
concept of enrichment relates to property theory, how the remedy of
restitution relates to principles of corrective justice and what
role mental elements should play in shaping the law.
click here for publisher's site
'Justifying Damages' in J. Neyers, R. Bronaugh and S. Pitel (eds), Exploring Contract Law
(Hart Publishing, 2009)
In this book, leading scholars from Australia, Canada, Hong
Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States deal with
important theoretical and practical issues in the law of contract and
closely-related areas of private law. The articles analyse developments in the
law of estoppel, mistake, undue influence, the interpretation of contracts,
assignment, exclusion clauses and damages. The articles also address more
theoretical issues such as discerning the limits of contract law, the role of
principle in the development of contract doctrine and the morality of promising.
With its rich scope of contributors and topics, Exploring Contract Law will be
highly useful to lawyers, judges and academics across the common law world.
click here for publisher's site
'Performance and compensation: and
analysis of contract damages and contractual obligation' (2006) 26
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 41-71
Although there is an
increasing body of opinion that awards of damages for
breach of contract should take account of the claimant's
performance interest, there has been little in the way
of analysis of what the performance interest is.
Commonly the concept is put forward as simply a
reformulation or reconceptualisation of the expectation
interest, itself hitherto regarded as the one true
contractual interest. Such thinking is flawed. A closer
analysis of contract doctrine shows there to be two
distinct contractual interests; in receiving
performance, and in being compensated for losses caused
by non-performance. Receiving compensatory damages for
non-performance is not the same as receiving
performance. At present, this important difference is
not fully appreciated, resulting in a failure to develop
a principled approach to the claims that can be made
following a breach of contract. Recognition of this
distinction forces us to confront the fundamental
question of how committed we are to the notion that
contracts entail a right to performance. This article
examines the distinction between these two interests,
how the performance interest may be given effect by a
damages award, and what the consequences of this
analysis are for our understanding of the nature of
contractual obligation.
click here for full text via Swetwise [ON
CAMPUS]
click here for full text via Swetwise [OFF CAMPUS]