The equitable action in unjust enrichment: Ambiguity and error
Loading...
Date
Author(s)
Citation for Previous Publication
McInnes, M. (2007). The equitable action in unjust enrichment: Ambiguity and error. Canadian Business Law Journal, 45(2), 253-280. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/canadbus45&div=18&g_sent=1&collection=journals
Link to Related Item
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/canadbus45&div=18&g_sent=1&collection=journals
Abstract
Description
The article discusses the two issues including ambiguity and error in the statement regarding equitable remedy that will necessarily involve discretion and questions of fairness in the judgment held in the Supreme Court case Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co. in Canada. It explains why unjust ought is not to be considered equitable in the sense of being, attributable to the Chancellor's jurisdiction, based on broad discretion or confined to a subsidiary gap-filling role. It is concluded that the issue concerning the Canadian law of unjust enrichment has no jurisdiction for resolving restitutionary claims in terms of broad discretion.
Item Type
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
Alternative
License
Other License Text / Link
© 2007 Canadian Business Law Journal. This article has been reproduced with the permission of the CBLJ.
Language
en