Lecture 3 Flashcards
Condictio causa data causa non secuta
the recovery of something transferred for a future purpose which failed to materialise
Situations involving CCDCNS: (3)
- transfers made in contemplation of marriage (Shilliday v Smith 1998)
- transfers made as an ‘advance’ in contemplation of the parties completing the performance of a contract (Watson v Shankland)
- transfers made under a contract which is frustrated (Cantiere v Clyde Shipbuilding 1923)
5-part claim under CCDCNS:
- deliberate conferral and receipt of benefit
- the reason for the conferral related to (i) a future lawful purpose outwith contract or (ii) the future purpose of completing performance of a contract which is subsequently frustrated
- the future purpose failed to materialise, meaning the retention of the benefit is without a legal ground
- no valid defence
- the whole circumstances of the case must make it equitable (as between parties) to redress the UE
Defences:
General defences of: 1. Change of position
2. Loss of enrichment
CCDCNS specific defence - P knew from the beginning that the purpose was not capable of fulfilment or that P prevented the fulfilment of the purpose in bad faith (Evans-Jones, p105)
Purpose underlying a non-contractual CCDCNS claim:
the arrangements must have been made on the basis of a mutually agreed understanding that was either express, or to be implied from the circumstances
Grieve v Morrision 1993
CCDCNS claim failed the test. She had not made it expressly clear that her contributions were conditional on the future marriage. Could be confusing because the facts are somewhat similar to Shilliday v Smith and Satchwell v McIntosh
Shilliday v Smith 1998
Leading case for CCDCNS - she had payed a lot of money to have the house improved because they were supposed to be getting married - he changed the locks while she was at work.
Satchwell v McIntosh 2006
Similar to Shilliday v Smith, but it was not clear that there was a future intention of marriage - she didn’t commit. That he gave in the hopes of marriage does not satisfy the test. It went to proof to see if it could be established if there was an intention to cohabit.
“advances” made in a contractual context
a repaybable transfer of funds made in advance, before a payment is due under the contract, and which is not therefore payment of the contract price
Watson v Shankland 1863
contracted for cargo - Bombay to UK - advance paid - normal trade practice - enough cash needed to be provided to allow the ship to set sale - ship sank - the advance could be recovered in principle because the advance is not considered to be a payment under the contract
Cantiere v Clyde Shipbuilding 1923
A claim under Condictio causa data cause non secuta was allowed after the obligations under the contract had been frustrated.
Zemhunt Holding v Control Securities 1992
**LOOK AT THIS CASE - DON’T YET UNDERSTAND ****
a deposit was paid, with one of the essential terms being that the buyers paid on time. they did not.
they tried to sue under unjustified enrichment - was dismissed
however L. Morison, in obiter, thought that such a claim, in certain circumstances, could be competent —
“If the pursuers did discharge these obligations, the sum would be repayable on the principle of restitution.”
Connelly v Simpson 1923
he bought share - transferred the money - asked that delivery be postponed until after his divorce proceedings.
does not fit CCDCNS because he never even tried to demand performance and too much time had elapsed. The contract allowed him the personal right against the defender to demand delivery of the shares - there was nothing preventing this.
Ramsay v Brand 1898
Builder - house - went off plans - refused to pay - couldn’t sue under contract because of material breach - client could have rejected the building
***BUT THE PERSON HAD ACCEPTED THE HOUSE - WAS LIVING IN IT
two possibilities in such circumstances: if it doesn’t conform in a minor way, payment should be made less the cost of cure
if the deviations are material, the owner can accept the building + be liable quantum lucratus set to the builder (they have to cover the cost of the work that has been done.
Graham v United Turkey Red 1922
G was sells agent - worked fine for a period of time - then started to breach contract, was selling the goods of a rival company - e/er found out, sacked him - HELD: he could claim under unjusitified enrichment for the work he had done before the breach
