![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Aug. 27th, 2013 11:48 amThe first paragraph of an article we have to read, "The Role of Subjective Benefit in the Law of Unjust Enrichment" by Michael Garner, in 1990:
The boundaries of the law of unjust enrichment are only now being drawn. The way has been pioneered by Goff and Jones and Birks, and in the spirit of true frontiersmen they have sought to annex as much territory as possible. Much of the ground claimed by them has been taken legitimately. But in certain areas they have transgressed. In particular, it is submitted that by adopting an overinclusive concept of subjective benefit through the vehicle of 'free acceptance' they have staked too great a claim. And that threatens the conceptual purity of the developing doctrine of unjust enrichment, but also its status as a legitimate legal event having as much a place in English law as contract and tort.
"...they have transgressed"? I feel like I'm reading literary theory again. Conceptual purity?
Academic writing, you gotta love it.
The boundaries of the law of unjust enrichment are only now being drawn. The way has been pioneered by Goff and Jones and Birks, and in the spirit of true frontiersmen they have sought to annex as much territory as possible. Much of the ground claimed by them has been taken legitimately. But in certain areas they have transgressed. In particular, it is submitted that by adopting an overinclusive concept of subjective benefit through the vehicle of 'free acceptance' they have staked too great a claim. And that threatens the conceptual purity of the developing doctrine of unjust enrichment, but also its status as a legitimate legal event having as much a place in English law as contract and tort.
"...they have transgressed"? I feel like I'm reading literary theory again. Conceptual purity?
Academic writing, you gotta love it.