IMPLIED CONTRACT AND RESTITUTION

Author:

Hedley Steve

Abstract

Most modern writers in restitution assume that that the theory of “implied contract” has somehow been disproved or discredited. Yet the justification for this is weak, and begs important questions about the nature and methodology of “genuine” contract law. This article argues for the continued usefulness of “implied contract”, and applies it as the basis of significant portions of the modern law of restitution.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Law

Cited by 14 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Comparative Study: The English Law of Unjust Enrichment;The Law of Unjust Enrichment in China: Necessary or Not?;2022

2. “Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment?” – A Common Law Response;Edinburgh Law Review;2016-09

3. 'Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment?? - A Common Law Response;SSRN Electronic Journal;2016

4. Unjust Enrichment and Contract;The Modern Law Review;2014-11

5. Restitutionary Remedies in the Contractual Context;The Modern Law Review;2013-05

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3