Central Concepts

Question 1

Cantiere San Rocco v Clyde Shipbuilding and Engineering CO

Answer 1

The Principle of preventing unjustified enrichment, i.e. by reson of the thing being recieved and the consideration and return failing, underlies the doctrine of restitution.

Question 2

Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York v Lothian Regional Council

Answer 2

Affirmed that unjustified enrichment is a distinct source of obligation in its own right

Question 3

Shilliday v Smith

Answer 3

Identified the proper meaning of the three R’s and the term condictio

Question 4

Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd

Answer 4

Recognised a general enrichment principle that all benefits retained by the defendant at the pursuers expense sine causa are recoverable

Question 5

Identification of the distinct groups of unjustified enrichment claims in Scots law

Answer 5

The different groups are distinguished based on the manner in which the enrichment was acquired.
Condictio claims - deliberate conferral
Interference - unintentional/accidental conferral
Imposition - Erroneous conferral
Discharge of anothers debt/obligation - unsure…

Question 6

Restituion - not compensation

Answer 6

All claims of unjustified enrichment are restitutionary in the broad sense that they are gains based restorative claims (where the defendant’s gain is restored to the pursuer) as distinct from compensatory (where the pursuer claims back a loss)

Question 7

Unjustified enrichment compared to property law

Answer 7

Property law is usually answering different questions from the law of obligation. Unjustified Enrichment is trying to restore the status quo.
Property law is usually cases where ownership has not transferred, and so P can claim his possession back in a claim in rem against D. If ownership has transferred it is an unjustified enrichment claim.
Unjustified enrichment does not try to dispute ownership, but rather argue that upon taking ownership there arises an obligation in personam on D to re-transfer ownership, or to repay the value of the thing.

Question 8

Unjustified enrichment compared to contract

Answer 8

Unjustified enrichment is subsidiary to contract, so if a contractual claim can be raised, an enrichment claim cannot.
Lord Hope in Dollar Land v CIN - an obligation in unjustified enrichment is owed where the enrichment cannot be justified on some legal basis arising from the circumstances in which the defender was enriched. there can be no better justification for an enrichment that that it was obtained and is being retained in the exercise of a contractual right against the party who seeks the remedy.