Abstract
Abstract This chapter covers the borderline between the law of tort and the law of unjust enrichment. The courts have repeatedly fallen into the trap of assuming that, because a claim is within the law of unjust enrichment, it must be governed by certain rules. This chapter suggests that the law of unjust enrichment is like the law of tort because different unjust enrichment claims, like different torts, are justified by different reasons. It also provides an overview of the notion of correlativity which influenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Prudential Assurance v Revenue & Customs Commissioners. It explains that correlativity cannot support the Court’s reasoning, which should be doubted.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
