The Third Restatement of Restitution, the role of unjust enrichment and Australian Law

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

11 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The American Law Institute's Restatement Third, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, published in 2011, may well re-activate interest in restitution in the United States. The principle of unjust enrichment is central to the Restatement. This article reviews the Restatement, first providing an overview of its methodology and the fundamental distinctions that it draws. Second, after a brief consideration of the role of unjust enrichment in (mostly English) academic theory and in Australian law, this article will consider, compare and critique the general role of that concept in the Restatement. I conclude that the Restatement takes a very different approach to that of the theorists: it is a pragmatic work that accepts the limitations of unjust enrichment and rejects much of the dogma associated with unjust enrichment theory.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)160-175
Number of pages16
JournalAustralian Bar Review
Volume35
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

dogma
Law
pragmatics
methodology

Cite this

@article{ee4fd699dbf24a4b8607fad86bf87f09,
title = "The Third Restatement of Restitution, the role of unjust enrichment and Australian Law",
abstract = "The American Law Institute's Restatement Third, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, published in 2011, may well re-activate interest in restitution in the United States. The principle of unjust enrichment is central to the Restatement. This article reviews the Restatement, first providing an overview of its methodology and the fundamental distinctions that it draws. Second, after a brief consideration of the role of unjust enrichment in (mostly English) academic theory and in Australian law, this article will consider, compare and critique the general role of that concept in the Restatement. I conclude that the Restatement takes a very different approach to that of the theorists: it is a pragmatic work that accepts the limitations of unjust enrichment and rejects much of the dogma associated with unjust enrichment theory.",
author = "Joachim Dietrich",
year = "2011",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "160--175",
journal = "Australian Bar Review",
issn = "0814-8589",
publisher = "LexisNexis Butterworths",
number = "2",

}

The Third Restatement of Restitution, the role of unjust enrichment and Australian Law. / Dietrich, Joachim.

In: Australian Bar Review, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2011, p. 160-175.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Third Restatement of Restitution, the role of unjust enrichment and Australian Law

AU - Dietrich, Joachim

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - The American Law Institute's Restatement Third, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, published in 2011, may well re-activate interest in restitution in the United States. The principle of unjust enrichment is central to the Restatement. This article reviews the Restatement, first providing an overview of its methodology and the fundamental distinctions that it draws. Second, after a brief consideration of the role of unjust enrichment in (mostly English) academic theory and in Australian law, this article will consider, compare and critique the general role of that concept in the Restatement. I conclude that the Restatement takes a very different approach to that of the theorists: it is a pragmatic work that accepts the limitations of unjust enrichment and rejects much of the dogma associated with unjust enrichment theory.

AB - The American Law Institute's Restatement Third, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, published in 2011, may well re-activate interest in restitution in the United States. The principle of unjust enrichment is central to the Restatement. This article reviews the Restatement, first providing an overview of its methodology and the fundamental distinctions that it draws. Second, after a brief consideration of the role of unjust enrichment in (mostly English) academic theory and in Australian law, this article will consider, compare and critique the general role of that concept in the Restatement. I conclude that the Restatement takes a very different approach to that of the theorists: it is a pragmatic work that accepts the limitations of unjust enrichment and rejects much of the dogma associated with unjust enrichment theory.

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 160

EP - 175

JO - Australian Bar Review

JF - Australian Bar Review

SN - 0814-8589

IS - 2

ER -