Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:32:39.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-examining Contract and Unjust Enrichment: Anglo-Canadian Perspectives, edited by Paula Giliker. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007, xxx + 337 + (index) 3pp (€126.00 hardback). ISBN 978-90-04-15563-3.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

James P Devenney
James P Devenney*
Affiliation:
Department of Law, Durham University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 477 - 481
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2. Chapter 1: ‘Diverging or Converging – The Ongoing Relationship of the Common Laws of England and Canada’.

3. Ibid, p 11.

4. Ibid, p 4.

5. Ibid, p 4.

6. See, in particular, the excellent essay by Bradgate and Saintier, ‘“Compensation” and “Indemnity” under the Agency Regulations: How the Common Law System Copes with the Invasion of Civilian Concepts', Chapter 15.

7. Chapter 7.

8. Chapter 4.

9. Chapter 5.

10. Following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407, [2003] QB 679. See also A Chandler, J Devenney and J Poole, ‘Common Mistake: Theoretical Justification and Remedial Inflexibility’ [2004] J 34.

11. [2002] EWCA Civ 1407, [2003] QB 679 at [161].

12. Chapter 12.

13. See D Sim, ‘Burden of proof in undue influence: Common law and codes on collision course' (2003) 7 Intl J Evidence & Proof 221.

14. Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773 at [14]–[16] per Lord Nicholls.

15. Above n 12, p 231.

16. R Bigwood, ‘Undue Influence: “Impaired Consent” or “Wicked Exploitation”’ (1996) 16 OJLS 503.

17. Above n 12, pp 241–243.

18. See, for example, Macklin v Dowsett [2004] EWCA Civ 904.

19. ‘On the Nature of Undue Influence', in Beatson, J and Friedmann, D (eds) Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).Google Scholar

20. Ibid, p 126.

21. (1887) 36 Ch D 145.

22. Ibid, at 189 (emphasis added).

23. ‘Undue Influence: “Impaired Consent” or “Wicked Exploitation”’? (1996) 16 OJLS 503.

24. Ibid, at 503.

25. See, for example, Evans v Llewellin (1787) 1 Cox CC 333.

26. (1864) 4 De GJ & S 388; 46 ER 968.

27. Ibid, at 425 (emphasis added), although cf Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil GB Ltd [1985] 2 WLR 944.

28. See J Devenney ‘A Pack of Unruly Dogs: Unconscionable Bargains, Lawful Act (Economic) Duress and Clogs on the Equity of Redemption’ [2002] JBL 539 and J Devenney and A Chandler ‘Unconscionability and the Taxonomy of Undue Influence’ [2007] JBL 541.

29. See J Devenney and A Chandler, ‘Unconscionability and the Taxonomy of Undue Influence’ [2007] JBL 541.

30. (1787) 1 Cox CC 333, 29 ER 1191.

31. (1888) 40 Ch D 312.

32. [1978] 1 WLR 255n and cf also D Capper ‘Undue Influence and Unconscionability: A Rationalisation’ (1998) 114 LQR 479.

33. Chapter 13.

34. Ibid, pp 276–277.

35. See A Chandler and J Devenney ‘Breach of contract and the expectation deficit: inconvenience and disappointment’ (2007) 27 LS 126.

36. Above n 33, pp 266–268.