The publication of the Restatement Third: Unjust Enrichment and Restitution by the American Law Institute in July 2010 was an event of major importance, not only for the development of the law of unjust enrichment in the US, but also for global scholarship relating to this area of private law. The Restatement First appeared in 1937, and the Restatement Second was abandoned; hence the Restatement Third is the most significant survey of the American law on this topic for over 70 years. Private law has been a comparatively neglected area of study in US law schools for several decades, and this is particularly true of the law of unjust enrichment. However, the appearance of the Restatement Third has prompted a renewal of interest in the subject among US scholars, and it is hoped that the present volume of essays will contribute to this revival, while reflecting on the lessons to be learned from the Restatement by other legal systems. Featuring the work of leading scholars from the UK, Germany, South Africa, Canada, Hong Kong and Australia, the essays undertake critical and comparative analysis of the Restatement, and offer fresh insights into the rules that it articulates.

Conventional thinking teaches that the absence of liability - in particular contractual invalidity - is itself the reason for the restitution of transfers in the South African law of unjustified enrichment. However, this book argues that while the absence of a relationship of indebtedness is a necessary condition for restitution in such cases, it is not a sufficient condition. The book takes as its focus those instances in which the invalidity thesis is strongest, namely, those traditionally classified as instances of the condictio indebiti, the claim to recover undue transfers. It seeks to demonstrate that in all such instances it is necessary for the plaintiff to show not only the absence of his liability to transfer but also a specific reason for restitution, such as mistake, compulsion or incapacity. Furthermore, this book explores the reasons for the rise of unjust factors in South African law, attributing this development in part to the influence of the Roman-Dutch restitutio in integrum, an extraordinary, equitable remedy that has historically operated independently of the established enrichment remedies of the civilian tradition, and which even now remains imperfectly integrated into the substantive law of enrichment. Finally, the book seeks to defend in principled terms the mixed approach to enrichment by transfer (an approach based both on unjust factors and on the absence of a legal ground) which appears to characterise modern South African law. It advocates the rationalisation of the causes of action comprised within the condictio indebiti, many of which are subject to additional historically-determined requirements, in light of this mixed analysis.

This comprehensive yet accessible Research Handbook offers an expert guide to the key concepts, principles and debates in the modern law of unjust enrichment and restitution.

Helps to locate the law relevant to the specific problem that is being investigated - and to allow those who are not familiar with the subject to find their way into it.

Disgorgement of profits is not exactly a household word in private law. Particularly in civil law jurisdictions – as opposed to those of the common law – the notion is not well known. What does it stand for? It is best illustrated by examples. One of the best known being the British case of Blake v Attorney General, [2001] 1 AC 268. In which a double spy had been imprisoned by the UK government before escaping and settling in the former Soviet Union. While there wrote a book on his experiences, upon which the UK government claimed the proceeds of the book. The House of Lords, as it then was, allowed the claim on the basis of Blake’s breach of his employment contract. Other examples are the infringement of intellectual property rights, where the damages of the owner are limited, but the profits of the wrongdoer immense. In such cases, the question arises whether the infringing party should be disgorged of his profits. This volume aims at establishing the notion of disgorgement of profits as a keyword in the discourse of private law. It does not purport to answer the question whether or not such damages should or should not be awarded. It does however aim to contribute to the discussion, the arguments in favour and against, and the organisation of the various actions.

Rights and obligations can arise, amongst other things, in tort or in unjust enrichment. Simone Degeling deals with the phenomenon whereby a stranger to litigation is entitled to participate in the fruits of that litigation. Two prominent examples of this phenomenon are the carer, entitled to share in the fund of damages recovered by a victim of tort, and the indemnity insurer, entitled to participate in the fruits of the insured's claim against the wrongdoer. Degeling demonstrates that both are rights raised to reverse unjust enrichment. Careful examination of these two categories reveals the existence of a novel policy-motivated unjust factor called the policy against accumulation. Degeling argues that this is an unjust factor of broad application, applying to configurations other than that of the carer and the indemnity insurer. This will interest restitution and tort lawyers, both academic and practitioner, as well as academic institutions and court libraries.

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.