Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:51:50.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CONSCIENCE IN PRIVATE LAW

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2018

Sinéad Agnew
Get access

Abstract

This article argues that the idea of conscience can play a useful, albeit limited and highly general, explanatory role in private law, if we have regard to two distinctive contexts in which it is used. First, it tells us something about how equitable obligations arise and reminds us that they directly enforce moral duties. Second, it conveys the message that the courts are reluctant to impose primary liabilities which restrict the exercise of legal rights absent a past or prospective breach of moral duty by the defendant. Without further explanation, the indiscriminate invocation of conscience in both contexts can lead to confusion and uncertainty, but if the distinction between obligation and liability is observed, the explanatory force of conscience in relation to each becomes clearer, and it plays a valuable role in bolstering the authority of private law.

Keywords

conscienceunconscionabilityequitytrustsrestitutioncontractestoppel
Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 77 , Issue 3 , November 2018 , pp. 479 - 505
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Lecturer in Property Law, University College London.

I am very grateful to Professor Sarah Worthington, Dr. Charlie Webb, Professor Charles Mitchell, Professor Ben McFarlane, the participants in the New Work in Obligations Conference at UCL 2016, and this Journal's anonymous reviewers, for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this work. Due to lack of space, it is not possible to discuss all the doctrines in which the courts use the language of conscience here: doctrines such as relief against penalties, forfeiture and rectification for mistake will be considered elsewhere. For similar reasons, this article does not engage in a comparison of the concepts of conscience, good faith and fairness. All errors are my own.

References

1 Birks, P., “Equity in the Modern Law: An Exercise in Taxonomy” (1996) 26 U.W.A.L.Rev. 1, at 16–17Google Scholar; Birks, P., “Equity, Conscience and Unjust Enrichment” (1999) 23 M.U.L.R. 1, at 14–15Google Scholar; Rickett, C., “Unconscionability and Commercial Law” (2005) 24 U.Q.L.J. 73, at 74Google Scholar; Havelock, R., “Conscience and Unconscionability in Modern Equity” (2015) 9 Jo.Eq. 1, at 23–28Google Scholar.

2 Smith, S., “A Duty to Make Restitution” (2013) 26 C.J.L.J. 157Google Scholar; Jaffey, P., Private Law and Property Claims (Oxford 2007), 23–24Google Scholar.

3 Lewis, C.S., Studies in Words, 2nd ed. (Cambridge 1967), 181Google Scholar; Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 5th ed. (Oxford 2002), vol. 1, 490Google Scholar.

4 Klinck, D., Conscience, Equity and the Court of Chancery in Early Modern England (Farnham 2010)Google Scholar.

5 Aquinas, St. Thomas, Summa Theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province tr.) (Ohio 1947), Pt I (1), 79, Art. 13Google Scholar; Lewis, Studies in Words, p. 190.

6 Aquinas, Summa Theologica Pt I (I), p. 79, Art. 12.

7 Klinck, Conscience, Equity and the Court of Chancery, p. 32.

8 Ibid., at p. 34.

9 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 1, p. 490.

10 Ibid.

11 Lewis, Studies in Words, p. 194; Samet, I., “What Conscience Can Do For Equity” (2012) 3 Jurisprudence 13, at 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 2, p. 3421.

13 Ibid.

14 Hursthouse, R., On Virtue Ethics (Oxford 1999), 1Google Scholar.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Pojman, L. and Tramel, P., Moral Philosophy: A Reader, 4th ed. (Indianapolis 2009), 19Google Scholar.

18 R. Dworkin, “Objectivity and Truth: You'd Better Believe It” (1996) 25 Phil. & Pub.Aff. 87, at 92.

19 Klinck, D., “The Unexamined ‘Conscience’ of Contemporary Equity” (2001) 46 McGill L.J. 571, at 600Google Scholar, emphasis added.

20 Raz, J., “Promises and Obligations” in Hacker, P. and Raz, J. (eds.), Law, Morality and Society (Oxford 1977)Google Scholar.

21 Green, L., “Law and Obligations” in Gardner, J. and Shapira, S. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford 2004), 516Google Scholar.

22 Finnis, J., Natural Law and Natural Law Rights, 2nd ed. (Oxford 2011), 297Google Scholar.

23 Samet, “What Conscience Can Do for Equity”, pp. 33–34.

24 Klinck, “Conscience, Equity and the Court of Chancery”, pp. 31, 32, 34.

25 Ibid. and pp. 53–56, 229–30; see also Plucknett, T. and Barton, J. (ed.), St. German's Doctor and Student (London 1974), 89, 111Google Scholar.

26 Knafla, L., “Conscience in the English Common Law Tradition” (1976) U.T.L.J. 1, at 3, 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Macnair, M., “Equity and Conscience” (2007) 27 O.J.L.S. 659CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 E.g. the doctrine of “lawful act duress”.

29 E.g. the duty of care: Ibbetson, D., A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford 1999), 166–67, 170, 191, 196–97Google Scholar.

30 Pitt v Holt [2013] UKSC 26, [2013] 2 A.C. 108 (HL), at [125], per Lord Walker; Tanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd. v Cauchi (2003) 217 C.L.R. 315 (H.C.A.), at [20]; Klinck, “The Unexamined ‘Conscience’”, p. 604.

31 Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 C.L.R. 394Google Scholar (H.C.A.), 441, per Deane J.

32 Union Eagle v Golden Achievement [1997] A.C. 514 (HL), 519, per Lord Hoffmann.

33 Wilson, J., “The Institutional and Doctrinal Roles of ‘Conscience’ in the Law of Contract” (2005) 11 Auckland U.L.Rev. 1, at 3, 7Google Scholar; Samet, “What Conscience Can Do For Equity”, p. 16; Virgo, G., “Whose Conscience? Unconscionability in the Common Law of Obligations” in Robertson, A. and Tilbury, M. (eds.), Divergences in Private Law (Oxford 2016), 305Google Scholar; Klinck, “The Unexamined ‘Conscience’”, pp. 606–07.

34 Samet, “What Conscience Can Do For Equity”, pp. 20, 25.

35 J. Ratzinger, “Conscience and Truth” (10th Workshop for Bishops, Dallas, Texas, February 1991), 1.

36 Cf. Twinsectra Ltd. v Yardley [2002] UKHL 12, [2002] 2 A.C. 164 (HL), at [27]–[36], per Lord Hutton.

37 A view shared by R. Hedlund, “Conscience and Unconscionability in English Equity” (unpublished doctoral thesis, February 2016), 110–11, available at <http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/14265/7/Richard%20Hedlund%20-%20PhD%20-%20Conscience%20and%20Unconscionability%20in%20English%20Equity.pdf>; and A. Hudson, “Conscience as the Organising Concept of Equity” (2016) 2 Canadian Journal of Contemporary and Comparative Law 261. See also Virgo, "Whose Conscience? Unconscionability in the Common Law of Obligations" , who distinguishes between the conscience of the court (which he regards as objective) and the conscience of the individual.

38 Jaffey, Private Law and Property Claims, p. 23.

39 Birks, P., “Rights, Wrongs and Remedies” (2000) 20 O.J.L.S. 1, at 31Google Scholar.

40 Smith, “A Duty To Make Restitution”, pp. 169–70.

41 Ibid., at p. 162.

42 Ibid., at pp. 163–64.

43 Hohfeld, W.N., “Fundamental Legal Conceptions” (1913) 23 Yale L.J. 29, at 44–54Google Scholar; Kramer, M., “Rights Without Trimmings” in Kramer, M., Simmonds, N. and Steiner, H. (eds.), A Debate Over Rights (Oxford 2000), 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Smith, “A Duty to Make Restitution”, p. 162; Jaffey, Private Law and Property Claims, p. 23.

45 Smith, “A Duty to Make Restitution”, p. 162.

46 Ibid., at p. 163.

47 Ibid., at p. 165.

48 Moorgate Tobacco Co. Ltd. v Philip Morris Ltd. (No. 2) (1984) 156 C.L.R. 414 (H.C.A.), 438, per Deane J.

49 Morrison v Moat (1851) 9 Hare 241, 256, 261, 68 E.R. 492, 498, per Turner V.C.; Saltman Engineering Co. Ltd. v Campbell Engineering Co. Ltd. (1948) 65 R.P.C. 203, [1963] 3 All E.R. 413 (CA), 414, per Lord Greene M.R.

50 AG v Guardian Newspapers (No. 2) [1990] A.C. 109 (HL), 281, per Lord Goff; Campbell v MGN Ltd. [2004] 2 A.C. 457 (HL), at [14], per Lord Nicholls, at [48], per Lord Hoffmann.

51 McGhee, J. Q.C. (ed.), Snell's Equity, 33rd ed. (London 2015), [9-005]Google Scholar.

52 Vestergaard Frandsen A/S v Bestnet Europet Ltd. [2013] UKSC 31, [2013] 1 W.L.R. 1556, at [23], per Lord Neuberger P.S.C.

53 Ibid., at para. [22].

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid., at para. [25].

56 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] A.C. 669 (HL), 705.

57 Re Reynolds: Official Assignee v Wilson [2008] NZCA 122, (2007–2008) 10 I.T.E.L. 1064, at [118], per Robertson J.

58 Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch. 1 (CA), 23, per Millett L.J.

59 P. Millett, “Bribes and Secret Commissions Again” [2012] C.L.J. 583, 599–600.

60 Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd. v Cradock and Others (no. 3) [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1555 (Ch.) 1583, 1615, per Ungoed-Thomas J.

61 Re Montagu's Settlement Trusts [1987] Ch. 264, 277, per Megarry V.C.

62 Mitchell, C. and Watterson, S., “Remedies for Knowing Receipt” in Mitchell, C. (ed.), Constructive and Resulting Trusts (Oxford 2010)Google Scholar.

63 Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria [2014] UKSC 10, [2014] A.C. 1189, 1206, at [26], [31], per Lord Sumption J.S.C., at [90], per Lord Neuberger J.S.C.

64 Ibid., at para. [31].

65 Independent Trustee Services Ltd. v GP Noble Trustees Ltd. [2012] EWCA Civ 195, [2013] Ch. 91, at [82], per Lloyd L.J.

66 Relfo v Varsani [2014] EWCA Civ 360, [2015] 1 B.C.L.C. 14, at [78].

67 El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings [1994] 1 B.C.L.C. 464 (CA), 478, per Hoffmann L.J.

68 E.g. Sekhon v Alissa [1989] 2 F.L.R. 94 (Ch.), 99, per Hoffmann J.

69 Vestergaard [2013] UKSC 31, [2013] 1 W.L.R. 1556.

70 Coco v AN Clark Engineers Ltd. (1969) R.P.C. 41 (CA), 48, 49, per Megarry V.C.

71 AIB Group (UK) Plc. v Mark Redler and Co. Solicitors [2014] UKSC 58, [2014] 3 W.L.R. 1367.

72 FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45, [2015] A.C. 250.

73 Smith, L., “W(h)ither Knowing Receipt?” (1998) 114 L.Q.R. 394, at 395Google Scholar.

74 Mitchell and Watterson, “Remedies for Knowing Receipt”, pp. 129, 130.

75 Ibid., at pp. 123, 132, 135–36.

76 E.g. Glister, J. and Lee, J., Hanbury and Martin Modern Equity, 20th ed. (London 2015), [25-015]Google Scholar.

77 Baden v Société Générale pour Favouriser le Développement du Commerce et de ‘l'Industrie en France S .A. [1993] 1 W.L.R. 509 (Ch), 575–76, per Peter Gibson J.

78 Guardian Newspapers [1990] A.C. 109 (HL), 281; Campbell [2004] 2 A.C. 457 (HL), at [14]; Primary Group (UK) Ltd. v Royal Bank of Scotland [2014] EWHC 1082 (Ch.), [2014] 2 All E.R. (Comm.) 1121, at [237], [240], per Arnold J.

79 Belmont Finance Corporation v Williams Furniture Ltd. (No. 2) [1979] Ch. 250 (CA).

80 Karak Rubber Co. Ltd. v Burden (No 2) [1972] 1 W.L.R. 602 (Ch.), 633, per Bingham L.J.

81 Consul Development Pty Ltd. v DPC Estates Pty Ltd. (1975) 132 C.L.R. 373, 410–11, per Stephen J.

82 Montagu [1987] Ch. 264; BCCI v Akindele [2001] Ch. 437 (CA), 455, per Nourse L.J.; Arthur v AG of Turks and Caicos [2012] UKPC 30, at [36]–[41], per Sir Terence Etherton.

83 Bryan, M., “The Receipt-Based Constructive Trust: A Case Study of Personal and Proprietary Restitution in the Supreme Court” (1999) 37 Alta.L.Rev. 73, at 85Google Scholar; R. Havelock, “The Transformation of Knowing Receipt”[2014] R.L.R. 1, p. 16.

84 Birks, P., “Receipt” in Birks, P. and Pretto, A. (eds.), Breach of Trust (Oxford 2002), 226Google Scholar.

85 Arthur [2012] UKPC 30, at [40].

86 Akindele [2001] Ch. 437 (CA), 455; Arthur [2012] UKPC 30, at [31].

87 Havelock, “The Transformation of Knowing Receipt”, pp. 8, 10.

88 Mitchell and Watterson, “Remedies for Knowing Receipt”; ibid., at p. 11.

89 E.g. Arthur [2012] UKPC 30, at [40].

90 Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 A.C. 46 (HL).

91 Vestergaard [2013] UKSC 31, [2013] 1 W.L.R. 1556.

92 E.g. Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr. 1005, 97 E.R. 676; Kelly v Solari (1841) 9 M. and W. 54, 152 E.R. 24.

93 Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd. v Hills Industries Ltd. [2014] HCA 14, at [65], [68], [74], per Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane J.J.

94 Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd. [2001] HCA 68, (2001) 208 C.L.R. 516, 555, per Gummow J.

95 Hills [2014] HCA 14, at [65].

96 Ibid., at paras. [86], [88].

97 Smith, “A Duty to Make Restitution”, pp. 158, 164–65; Jaffey, Private Law and Property Claims, pp. 24–25.

98 Smith, “A Duty to Make Restitution”, p. 165, n. 33.

99 Burrows, A., The Law of Restitution (Oxford 2010), 203–04Google Scholar.

100 Evans, Sir William, “An Essay on the Action for Money had and Received (1802)” (1998) 6 R.L.R. 2Google Scholar.

101 Birks, P. and Chin, N., “On the Nature of Undue Influence” in Beatson, J. and Friedman, D. (eds.), Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law (Oxford 1995), 60Google Scholar, refer to this as “unconscientiousness ex post”.

102 Smith, “A Duty To Make Restitution”, pp. 172, 173, 177.

103 Smith (ibid.) accepts that a duty of this kind may arise.

104 Jaffey, Private Law and Property Claims, p. 25.

105 Niru Battery Manufacturing Company v Milestone Trading Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 1446, [2004] Q.B. 985, at [156]–[158], per Clarke L.J.

106 Westdeutsche [1996] A.C. 669 (HL), 715, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson.

107 I.T.S. v Noble [2013] Ch. 91, at [78], [81], per Lloyd L.J.

108 The availability of rescission for unilateral mistake in English law is in doubt: Great Peace Shipping Ltd. v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 1407, [2003] Q.B. 679.

109 Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. [2005] 1 S.L.R. 502 (S.C.A.), at [73], [80].

110 Ibid.; Taylor v Johnson (1982–1983) 151 C.L.R. 422 (HCA), 431.

111 Torrance v Bolton (1872) L.R. 8 Ch. 118 (CA), 124, per James L.J.

112 Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch. D. 1 (CA), 12–13, per Jessel M.R.

113 Hart v O'Connor [1985] A.C. 1000 (P.C.), 1024, per Lord Brightman.

114 Allcard v Skinner (1887) 35 Ch. D. 145 (CA), 190, per Bowen L.J.

115 Liddle v Cree [2011] EWHC 3294, at [83], [84], per Briggs J.

116 National Commercial Bank (Jamaica) Ltd. v Hew's Executors [2003] UKPC 51, at [28], [33], per Lord Millett.

117 Birks and Chin, “On the Nature of Undue Influence”, p. 85.

118 Bowkett v Action Finance Ltd. [1992] 1 N.Z.L.R. 399, 457, per Tipping J.; Baker v Monk (1864) 4 De. G. and S. 388, 394, 46 E.R. 968, 971.

119 Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd. v Amadio (1983) 151 C.L.R. 447 (H.C.A.), 474, 478, 479, per Deane J.

120 E.g. Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd. v Total Oil (Great Britain) Ltd. [1985] 1 W.L.R. 173 (CA), 182, per Dillon L.J.

121 Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] H.C.A. 25, at [161].

122 R. Ahdar, “Contract Doctrine, Predictability and the Nebulous Exception” [2014] C.L.J. 39 doubts whether a threat to do something lawful will ever constitute illegitimate pressure absent previous unlawful conduct, but Tam Tak Chuen v Khairul bin Abdul Rahman [2009] 2 S.L.R. 240 (S.C.A.), at [57]–[59], suggests otherwise.

123 CTN Cash and Carry Ltd. v Gallagher Ltd. [1994] 4 All E.R. 714 (CA), 719, per Steyn L.J.

124 Alf Vaughan and Co. Ltd. (In Receivership) v Royscot Trust Plc. [1999] 1 All E.R. (Comm.) 856 (Ch.), 863, per Judge Rich Q.C.

125 Tam Tak Chuen [2009] 2 S.L.R. 240 (S.C.A.), at [57]–[59]; Borrelli v Ting [2010] UKPC 21, [2010] Bus. L.R. 1718, at [28]–[35]; Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd. v Tube City IMS LLC [2012] EWHC 273 (Comm), [2012] 1 C.L.C. 365, at [39]–[40], per Cooke J.

126 Lloyd's Bank Ltd. v Bundy [1975] Q.B. 326 (CA), 341, per Sir Eric Sachs L.J.; Royal Bank of Scotland plc. v Etridge (No 2) [2002] 2 A.C. 773 (HL), at [103], per Lord Hobhouse; Bigwood, R., “Contracts by Unfair Advantage: From Exploitation to Transactional Neglect” (2005) 25 O.J.L.S. 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chen-Wishart, M., “Undue Influence: Beyond Impaired Consent and Wrongdoing Towards a Relational Analysis” in Burrows, A. and Rodger, A. (eds.), Mapping the Law (Oxford 2006), 217, 220–21Google Scholar.

127 Ho, L., “Undue Influence and Equitable Compensation” in Rose, F. (ed.), Restitution and Equity: Vol. 1: Resulting Trusts and Equitable Compensation (Oxford 2000), 197Google Scholar; and G. Virgo, “The Role of Fault in the Law of Restitution” in Burrows and Rodger, Mapping the Law, p. 99.

128 Agnew v Lansforsakringsbolagens AB [2001] 1 A.C. 223 (HL), 265, per Lord Millett.

129 Hart v Burbidge [2014] EWCA Civ 992, at [43], per Vos L.J.

130 Kakavas [2013] H.C.A. 25, at [161]; see also ANZ Banking Group Ltd. v Karam [2005] NSWCA 344, at [61], [66]; and Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd. [2012] VSCA 95, at [10]–[11], per Mandie J.A.

131 Bryan, M., “Unconscionable Conduct as an Unjust Factor” in Degeling, S. and Edelman, J. (eds.), Unjust Enrichment in Commercial Law (Sydney 2008), 303Google Scholar.

132 Birks, P., “Undue Influence as Wrongful Exploitation” (2004) 120 L.Q.R. 34, at 37Google Scholar.

133 T. Yeo, “Unilateral Mistake: Five Degrees of Fusion of Common Law and Equity” [2004] Sing. J.L.S. 227, 231, n. 34.

134 Bigwood, “Contracts by Unfair Advantage”.

135 Bigwood argues that the idea of conscience plays a corrective justice function in contract law: Bigwood, R., “Conscience and the Liberal Conception of Contract: Observing Basic Distinctions, Parts I and II” (2000) 16 J.C.L. 1Google Scholar.

136 Birks and Chin, “On the Nature of Undue Influence”, p. 60.

137 Birks, P., “The Role of Fault in the Law of Unjust Enrichment” in Swadling, W. and Jones, G. (eds.), The Search for Principle (Oxford 1999), 265Google Scholar.

138 Ibid., at p. 262.

139 Birks, “Undue Influence”, p. 36

140 Rickett, “Unconscionability and Commercial Law”, p. 80.

141 S. Smith, “Contracting Under Pressure: A Theory of Duress” [1997] C.L.J. 343, at 344.

142 Acknowledged by Birks, “The Role of Fault”, p. 262.

143 Barton v Armstrong [1976] A.C. 104 (HL), 121, per Lords Wilberforce and Simon.

144 E.g. Birks, “The Role of Fault”, p. 262; Virgo, “The Role of Fault”, p. 99.

145 Mothew [1998] Ch. 1 (CA).

146 Although the claimant's proprietary interest operates retrospectively: ibid., at p. 23.

147 Ibid.

148 Bant, E., “Reconsidering the Role of Election in Rescission” (2012) 32 O.J.L.S. 467, at 476Google Scholar.

149 Norwegian American Cruiser A/S v Paul Mundy Ltd. (The Vistafjord) [1988] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 343 (CA).

150 PW v Milton Gate Investments Ltd. [2003] EWHC 1994 (Ch), [2004] Ch. 142, at [38], per Neuberger J.

151 HM Revenue and Customs v Benchdollar Ltd. [2009] EWHC 1310 (Ch), [2010] 1 All E.R. 174, at [55], per Briggs J.

152 Ibid.

153 Amalgamated Investment and Property Co. Ltd. (in Liquidation) v Texas Commercial International Bank Ltd. [1982] Q.B. 84 (CA), 126, per Eveleigh L.J.

154 Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd. [2008] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1752, at [98], per Lord Walker; Kim v Chasewood Park Residents Ltd. [2013] EWCA Civ 239, [2013] H.L.R. 24, at [41], per Patten L.J.

155 Verwayen (1990) 170 C.L.R. 394 (H.C.A.), 441, per Deane J.

156 McFarlane, B., “Understanding Equitable Estoppel: From Metaphors to Better Laws” (2013) 66 C.L.P. 267, at 281–82Google Scholar.

157 Suggitt v Suggitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1140.

158 Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd. v Maher (1988) 165 C.L.R. 387, 424, per Brennan J., 407, per Mason C.J. and Wilson J.

159 Ramsden v Dyson (1866) L.R. 1 H.C. 129, 140–41; Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch. D. 96, 105–06.

160 Taylor's Fashions Ltd. v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co. Ltd. [1982] Q.B. 133, 148, 151–52, per Oliver J.

161 The August Leonhardt [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 28 (CA), 34–35; Benchdollar [2009] EWHC 1310 (Ch.), at [55].

162 E.g. Amalgamated Investment [1982] Q.B. 84 (CA).

163 Verwayen (1990) 170 C.L.R. 394 (H.C.A.), 440–45, per Deane J., 413, per Mason C.J.

164 Samet, I., “Some Strings Attached: The Morality of Proprietary Estoppel” in Penner, J. and Smith, H. (eds.), The Philosophical Foundations of Property Law (Oxford 2013), 128–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

165 Ibid., at p. 129.

166 Ibid., at p. 153.

167 McFarlane, “Understanding Equitable Estoppel”, p. 287; McFarlane, B., “Equitable Estoppel as a Cause of Action: Neither One Thing Nor One Other” in Degeling, S., Edelman, J. and Goudkamp, J. (eds.), Contract in Commercial Law (Sydney 2016), 372Google Scholar.

168 McFarlane, “Understanding Equitable Estoppel”, pp. 293–94; McFarlane, “Equitable Estoppel as a Cause of Action”, p. 376.

169 McFarlane, “Equitable Estoppel as a Cause of Action”, pp. 369–75.

170 Ibid.

171 Cobbe [2008] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1752, at [92], per Lord Walker.

172 Such as a change in circumstances of the promisor: McFarlane, “Equitable Estoppel as a Cause of Action”, p. 373.

173 Samet, I., “Proprietary Estoppel and Responsibility for Omissions” (2015) 78 M.L.R. 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

174 Blue Haven Enterprises Ltd. v Tully [2006] UKPC 17, [25]–[28], per Lord Scott.

175 Taylor's Fashions [1982] Q.B. 133, 155–57, per Oliver J.

176 Ramsden (1866) L.R. 1 H.C. 129, 140–41, per Lord Cranworth; Willmott (1880) 15 Ch. D. 96, 105–06, per Fry J.; Taylor's Fashions [1982] Q.B. 133, 147, per Oliver J.

177 Hart, H.L.A., The Concept of Law (Oxford 1961), 171Google Scholar.

178 Ibid., at pp. 185, 204.

179 Ibid., at p. 204.

180 Cane, P., Responsibility in Law and Morality (Oxford 2002), pp. 6–12Google Scholar.

181 Birks, “Equity in the Modern Law”, pp. 16–17; Birks, “Equity, Conscience and Unjust Enrichment”, pp. 14–15.

182 Webb, C., Reason and Restitution (Oxford 2016), 25, n. 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

183 Dworkin, R., Taking Rights Seriously (Harvard 1978), 154, 156Google Scholar.

184 Harding, M., “Equity and the Rule of Law” (2016) 132 L.Q.R. 278, 286Google Scholar.

185 Jaffey, Private Law and Property Claims, p. 41.

186 Hart, The Concept of Law, p. 203; but cf. Smith, “A Duty to Make Restitution”, p. 163.

187 Gardner, J., “Obligations and Outcomes” in Cane, P. and Gardner, J. (eds), Relating to Responsibility: Essays for Tony Honoré (Oxford 2001), p. 15Google Scholar, emphasis in original; Webb, Reason and Restitution, p. 23.

188 Shiffrin, S., “Inducing Moral Deliberation: On the Occasional Virtues of Fog” (2010) 123 Harv.L.Rev. 1214, at 1223Google Scholar; Samet, “What Conscience Can Do For Equity”, p. 34.

189 Maitland, F., Lectures on Equity (Oxford 1909), 18–19Google Scholar.

190 Klimchuk, D., “Equity and the Rule of Law” in Austin, L. and Klimchuk, D. (eds.), Private Law and the Rule of Law (Oxford 2014), 247Google Scholar.

191 Smith, “Property, Equity, and the Rule of Law”, pp. 232–33.

192 J. Gardner, “Rationality and the Rule of Law in Offences Against the Person” [1994] C.L.J. 502.

193 Samet, “What Conscience Can Do For Equity”; I. Samet, Equity: Conscience Goes to Market (Singapore Symposium in Legal Theory 2015), available at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgA8z68QhtY 2015>.

194 R. Duff, “Legal Obligation and the Moral Nature of Law” [1980] Jurisprudence Review 61, at 85.