Excising Estoppel by Representation as a Defence to Restitution

Abstract

Both the existence of and theoretical justification for defences to an action in unjust enrichment have been the source of controversy since the action was first recognised inMoses v. Macferlam.* The House of Lords' recognition of a defence of change of position inLipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Ltd1goes some way towards meeting the criticisms levelled at the courts' general failure to develop and clarify the defences to restitution. The judgments of Lord Goff and Lord Templeman have properly been acclaimed for imposing some measure of order upon an important aspect of the law of restitution. However, problems remain. Lipkin Gorman does not provide an exhaustive analysis of either change of position or its inter-relationship with other defences.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 69 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.