Lecture 2

Question 1

Shilliday v Smith 1998

Answer 1

Leading case on UE

Tripartite test introduced:

1. Enrichment
2. At another’s expense
3. The enrichment is unjustified

Question 2

Types of UE:

Answer 2

1. Transfer deliberate conferral of the benefit
   
   • condictio indebiti
   • condictio causa data causa non escuta
2. Taking
3. Imposition

Question 3

Condictio indebiti

Answer 3

recovery of a benefit that was undue

Question 4

Condictio causa data causa non secuta

Answer 4

recovery of a benefit because it was conferred

Question 5

Condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam

Answer 5

recovery of benefit conferred for illegal or immoral purpose

Question 6

Condictio sine causa

Answer 6

residual claim for benefits retained without legal basis but not covered by other claims already listed

Question 7

List the four condictio’s:

Answer 7

1. Condictio indebiti
2. Condictio causa data causa non secuta
3. Condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam
4. Condictio sine causa

Question 8

Examples of condictio indebiti (4)

Answer 8

1. overpayment of a debt (British Hydro-Carbon Cemicals & BT Commission 1961)
2. payment made to the wrong person (Credit Lyonnais v George Stevenson & Co 1901)
3. payment of non-existent debt
4. payment under a void contract (Morgan Guarunty Trust v Lothian Regional Council 1995)

Question 9

British Hydro-Carbon Cemicals & BT Commission 1961

Answer 9

overpayment of a debt

Question 10

Credit Lyonnais v George Stevenson & Co 1901

Answer 10

payment made to the wrong person - a letter arrived in french, no one did anything about it

Question 11

Morgan Guarunty Trust v Lothian Regional Council 1995

Answer 11

payment under a void contract - ultra vires - leading Scot’s law case on condictio indebiti

Question 12

Test for condictio indebiti (Evans-Jones, pp61-62) (4)

Answer 12

1. deliberate conferral and receipt of a benefit
2. the purpose of the conferral was to discharge a legally recognised duty (e.g. performance under a contract)
3. the purpose of the conferral failed, because the benefit transferred was undue
4. the reason why the conferral was made must have been an error by the transferror as to legal liability

Question 13

Excusability of the Error - Bulman v Frost 1996

Answer 13

NOT FULLY LAW, ONLY OBITER…

it is not a part of Scot’s law that the error must be shown to be excusable.

but…

perhaps the nature of the error and whether it could have been avoided could contribute to the decision in equity. however, once P’s case has prima facie been established, D must lead with this argument [perhaps leading to a full defence, probably leading to less damages to be paid]