Title

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

Date of this Version

12-1-2011

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Details

Citation only

Dietrich, J. (2011). The Third Restatement of Restitution, the role of unjust enrichment and Australian Law. Australian Bar Review, 35 (2), 160-175.

Access the publisher's website.

2011 HERDC submission. FoR code: 180105

© Copyright LexisNexis, 2011

ISSN

0814-8589

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.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 

This document has been peer reviewed.