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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

16 Downloads (Pure)


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
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2011


Cite this