Project #40968 - Remedies

 

In Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd (2014) 307 ALR 512, which concerned an action to recover in unjust enrichment for moneys paid under mistake, and in Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 88 ALJR 640 (Sidhu), which concerned an action to enforce an estoppel, the High Court of Australia relied upon the concept of detriment as a unifying principle to justify the prevention of inequitable and unconscionable results. However, in doing so, neither case explained how detriment was to be assessed. Both cases provide that where the detriment is adjudged to be substantial there will be no need to determine any pro tanto restoration for moneys paid under mistake. Furthermore, the court held that a plaintiff will not be required to identify the “minimum equity” that is required to redress the representation, stating: ‘[t]he requirements of good conscience may mean that in some cases the value of the promise may not be the just measure of relief’: Sidhu (2014) 88 ALJR 640, [83] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ). In consideration of these two recent decisions, how much detriment must be established before the representor will be ordered to make good the representation or for a court to protect the innocent recipient of a mistaken payment? 

Subject Law
Due By (Pacific Time) 09/23/2014 11:49 pm
Report DMCA
TutorRating
pallavi

Chat Now!

out of 1971 reviews
More..
amosmm

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
PhyzKyd

Chat Now!

out of 1164 reviews
More..
rajdeep77

Chat Now!

out of 721 reviews
More..
sctys

Chat Now!

out of 1600 reviews
More..
sharadgreen

Chat Now!

out of 770 reviews
More..
topnotcher

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
XXXIAO

Chat Now!

out of 680 reviews
More..
All Rights Reserved. Copyright by AceMyHW.com - Copyright Policy