Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Restitution - Coggle Diagram
Restitution
Moneys had and recieved
Failure of consideration
The consideration is the actual performance of the defendant's promise not the promise itself which is relevant consider (Baltic Shipping v Dillion) Baltic Shipping - Not a total failure of consideration. Roxborough v Rothmans - party payment may form a ground for recovering a proportionate part of the money paid for it is consideration is severable
the payment was for a purpose that failed or a contract that was unenforceable e.g. jackson paid a deposit to Lacey to purchase a block of land. The Contract was subject to finance, the contract was terminated because Jackson was unable to obtain finance. The deposit was paid for a purpose that failed and consideration for the payment has failed
Mistake of fact or law
A mistake of any type can ground recovery in restitution provides that the mistake cause the payment (David Securities Pty Ltd v Cth Bank of Australia) e.g. where the subject matter ceased to exist prior to the contract being formed without knowledge of the parties or a party pays an incorrect amount by mistake
A voluntary payment made in satisfaction of an honest claim is irrecoverable - the plaintiff must provide the existence of a mistake of facts
Voluntary payment - the payor will be entitled to recover money under a mistake of a legal obligation to pay money,. If they believed the particular law was invalid then the plaintiff is not entitled to restitution
- recovery depends upon enrichment of the defendant by reason of one or more recognised classed of qualifying or vitiating factor
- The category of case must involve a qualifying or vitiating factor such as mistake, duress, illegality or failure of consideration by reason of which the enrichment of the defendant is treated by law as unjust
- Unjust enrichment so identified gives rise to a prima facie obligation to make restitution
- The prima facie liability can be displaced by circumstances which the law recognises would make an order for restation unjust
e.g. money paid by mistake of fact - receipt of payment which has been made under mistake is one of the categories of case which the facts give rise to a prima facie obligation to make resitiution
Quantum Meruit
The plaintiff claims reasonable remuneration for services rendered or money spent for and at the defendant's request where there is no effective contract between them Pavey and Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul
- A benefits (an enrichment) has the pl provided a benefit to the defendant
- Was it at the expense of the pl?
- A principled ground of recovery establishing the injustice of retention of the enrichment - is it unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit?
- Is there an absence of an available defence?
Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd - the builders has no right to claim payment from Lumbers, unjust enrichment would not arise as the matter was governed by a contract
Defences
Change in position - applies where a person receives a benefit and the person has acted to their benefit on the fate of the receipt was not made by a mistaken payment. Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd