Lecutre 1

Question 1

Dollar Land v CIN 1997

Answer 1

Tripartite test from Shilliday confirmed, a fourth condition is added on.

1. Enrichment
2. At another’s expense
3. The enrichment is unjustified (sine cause - without a legal basis)
4. If all three are established, the final condition is that restoration must be equitable. D must show that it is inequitable that he pay back the funds.

Question 2

RBS v Watt 1991

Answer 2

TRANSFER: CONDICTIO INDEBITI

– payment to a wrong person, though by way of performing a valid contract –

Cheque from W&J Burness to New Business Financial Services - fraudulently altered by Mr. Pratt, payable to Mr. Watt - amount altered from £631.63 to £18,631

Mr. Watt had been conned by Mr. Pratt into putting the money into his account - Watt ended up taking all of the money and running (except £631, which Watt kept) Watt had to pay the money back.

Question 3

Peter Walker v Leith Glazing 1980

Answer 3

TRANSFER: CONDICTIO INDEBITI

– over performance of a valid contract –

Leith Glazing was sub-contracted for £898 work done by Peter Walker (contractor working for a garage) - there was additional work done, which they had charged for - on the invoice, it said “work done as instructed” - the bill was paid, it was realised later that they had gone beyond what was contracted - Leith glazing had to pay back they money.

Question 4

GTW Holdings v Toet 1994

Answer 4

TAKING:

GTW owned the land - Toet moved in - without lease - squatted for a few years - owners brought claim of UE -

Defence: they weren’t doing anything wrong, the owner didn’t even know for years

HELD: this is UE. By living there, they were gaining a benefit.

Question 5

McDowel v McDowel 1906

Answer 5

IMPOSITION:

Captain M granted his wife a 99 year lease over property … expensive improvements .. built a house … after H’s death the lease was found to be invalid … Son was now owner of the land … Son was bound to reimburse the deceased captain’s estate

Question 6

Stair, I, 7, 1

Answer 6

The obligation [of unjustified enrichment] does not depend on agreement but is obediential, arising by operation of law.

Question 7

Examples of legal grounds justifying retention: (5)

Answer 7

1. contract (eg. a loan is justifiably kept because the contract provides the legal basis)
2. gift
3. transfer from an estate (e.g. inheritance under a valid will or other rules of law of succession)
4. satisfaction of court decree (if you’re sued and have to pay damages)
5. satisfaction of statutory payment demand (paying tax)

Question 8

Morgan Guaranty Trust v Lothian Regional Council 1995

Answer 8

the contract was ultra vires - was void - nul ab initio - no contract, no legal grounds for retention

“D … have not made any averments to show that it would be inequitable”

Question 9

Watson & Co v Shankland 1871

Answer 9

TRANSFER: CONDICTIO CAUSA DATA CAUSA NON SECUTA

Obligations under the contract had been frustrated. Needed another remedy

Question 10

Cuthbertson v Lowes 1870

Answer 10

TRANSFER: CONDICTIO OB TURPEM VEL INJUSTAM CAUSAM

Allows the recovery of a transfer made for an illegal or immoral purpose. Must not be in pari delicto – not share the blame.

This was the potato case

Question 11

nemo locupletari potest aliena iactura or nemo locupletari debet cum aliena iactura

Answer 11

no one should be benefited at another’s expense