Rethinking Restitution: Will Unjust Enrichment Lawyers Join In?

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Jonathan Silver
{"title":"Rethinking Restitution: Will Unjust Enrichment Lawyers Join In?","authors":"Jonathan Silver","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3654118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a recent article Lionel Smith has argued that there is no normative unity in most restitutionary claims that are currently thought of as being part of the law of unjust enrichment. This leads him to conclude that the generally accepted test for unjust enrichment liability is inapplicable with respect to those claims. This article looks at Smith’s arguments and at two early responses to them from unjust enrichment lawyers and concludes that, whatever the rights and wrongs of Smith’s position, these responses do not engage with Smith on his own ground, and, to that extent, do nothing to counter a new wave of increasing academic scepticism concerning the very existence of the legal category we call unjust enrichment.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3654118","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a recent article Lionel Smith has argued that there is no normative unity in most restitutionary claims that are currently thought of as being part of the law of unjust enrichment. This leads him to conclude that the generally accepted test for unjust enrichment liability is inapplicable with respect to those claims. This article looks at Smith’s arguments and at two early responses to them from unjust enrichment lawyers and concludes that, whatever the rights and wrongs of Smith’s position, these responses do not engage with Smith on his own ground, and, to that extent, do nothing to counter a new wave of increasing academic scepticism concerning the very existence of the legal category we call unjust enrichment.
重新思考赔偿:不当得利律师会加入吗?
在最近的一篇文章中,莱昂内尔·史密斯(Lionel Smith)认为,目前被认为是不当得利法的一部分的大多数赔偿要求没有规范的统一性。这使他得出结论,普遍接受的不当致富责任检验不适用于这些索赔。本文研究了史密斯的论点,以及不当得利律师对这些论点的两种早期回应,并得出结论:无论史密斯的立场是对是错,这些回应都与史密斯自己的立场不一致,而且,在这种程度上,无助于反击学术界对我们称之为不当得利的法律类别的存在日益增长的新浪潮。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信