Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-xklcj Total loading time: 0.358 Render date: 2021-09-23T21:37:26.608Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Negotiorum Gestio: A Civilian Concept in the Common Law?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Abstract

This paper assesses whether English law recognizes a concept of negotiorum gestio. Claimants intervening in other' affairs and seeking restitution or reimbursement of expenses are often labeled ‘officious’, and disallowed relief. That, however, gives a misleading impression of English law. English law does recognize a concept of negotiorum gestio, which while very different to that found in German law, has parallels to versions found in other Civilian systems. It provides a cause of action to recover the intervenor's expenses, and any loss suffered during the intervention. It also provides a defence to the intervenor's intentional torts, although negligent intervenors will remain liable for their negligence

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2006

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

1 See Arts 2292–7 Louisiana CC and Coastal Environmental Specialists v Chem-Lig 818 So (2d) 12 (2001).

2 See eg other than the jurisdictions discussed in detail Arts 6:198–6:202 Dutch Civil Code — translation [1994] RLR 202, commentary E Schrage ‘Restitution in the New Dutch Civil Code’ [1994] RLR 208.

3 Birks, PBHUnjust Enrichment (2nd ednClarendon Press Oxford 2005) 24;CrossRefGoogle ScholarKortmann, JAltruism in Private Law (OUP Oxford 2005) part 2; Mollgaard v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corpn [1999] 3 NZLR 735. See s Stoljar ‘Negotiorum Gestio’ ch 17, vol X International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law 3, but also 176.Google Scholar

4 Burrows, ASThe Law of Restitution (2nd ednButterworths London 2002) 162–4; Greenwood v Bennett [1973] QB 193.Google Scholar

5 F v West Yorkshire HA [1989] 2 All ER 545 (HL). The difficulty of communication was cited in McEuen & Co v Weinberg Bros [1915] CPD 789.

6 Dawson, JNegotiorum Gestio: The Altruistic Intermeddler’ (1961) 74 Harvard L Rev 1073, 1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 In Civilian system such as Louisiana this does not seem to matter.

8 See eg Klug & Klug v Penkin [1932] CPD 401; Williams Estate v Mollenschoot and Schep [1939] CPD 360; Standard Bank Financial Services v Taylam (1979) 2 SA 383 (C) (extracted at Beatson, J and Schrage, E (eds) Cases Materials and Texts on Unjustified Enrichment (Hart Publishing Oxford 2003) 415–21). Contrast Stoljar (n 3) 8.Google Scholar

9 Solis, J MenalcoManagement of the Affairs of Another’ (1961) 36 Tulane L Rev 108. For a summary of the history of negotiorum gestio seeGoogle ScholarDawson, JNegotiorum Gestio: The Altruistic Intermeddler’ (1961) 74 Harvard L Rev 817, 819–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Zimmermann, RThe Law of Obligations (Juta & Co Cape Town 1996) ch 14Google Scholar

11 ibid 433. Art 2293 Louisiana CC also provides ‘A management of affairs is subject to the rules of mandate to the extent they are compatible’.

12 § 9941 BGB. Louisiana law recognizes an equivalent concept Louisiana CC Arts 486, 529; Green v Moore 11 So 223 (1892); Willenzik, DSThe Possessor's Right to Compensation’ (1971) 31 Louisiana L Rev 491. This came from French and ultimately Roman law.Google Scholar

13 Which includes one in possession after the start of proceedings relating to the possession.

14 § 994II BGB.

15 Krebs, T ‘Unrequested Benefits in German Law’ in Neyers, J (ed) Understanding Unjust Enrichment (Hart Publishing Oxford 2004) 247, 255. There is some debate as to how this is achieved. This is not a controversy we need to enter.Google Scholar

16 Zimmermann, R and du Plessis, JBasic Features of the German Law of Restitution’ [1994] RLR 14, 30Google Scholar

17 § 687 BGB.

18 Leslie, RDNegotiorum Gestio: The Claim of the Privileged Gestor’ [1983] JR 12, 12;Google ScholarStewart, WJThe Law of Restitution in Scotland (W Green & Sons Edinburgh 1992) 167.Google Scholar

19 Van Zyl, DHNegotiorum Gestio in South African Law (Butterworths Durban 1689) 9; Standard Bank Financial Services v Taylam (1979) 2 SA 383 (C) 387.Google Scholar

20 Dawson (n 9) 841.

21 Joubert, D (ed) Encyclopaedia of South African Law vol 17 (Juta & Co Cape Town) para 21; in German law see O Palandt Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (62 Auflage Beck München) 1065.Google Scholar

22 Encyclopaedia of South African Law (n 21) para 21. But see Palandt (n 21) 1066 where it seems any such act will do.

23 Zimmermann (n 10) 441–2; Stoljar (n 3) 20.

24 Jauernig, OBürgerliches Gesetzbuch (8 Auflage Beck München 1997) 733; Palandt (n 21) 1062–3.Google Scholar

25 Larenz, KLehrbuch des Schuldrechts (12 Auflage Beck München 1981) 347;Google ScholarMünchener Kommentar (3 Auflage Beck München 1997) Band 3, Halbband 2, 275; BGHZ 40, 28.Google Scholar

26 Ayres, LH and Landry, RThe Distinction Between Negotiorum Gestio and Mandate’ (1988) 49 Louisiana L Rev 111, 128; Ouachita Equipment Rental Co v Trainer 408 So. 2d 930 (1981); Sales Purchase Corpn v Pucket 417 So 2nd 137 (1982). This has not always been so. A de Castro ‘Negotiorum Gestio in Louisiana’ (1933) 7 Tulane L Rev 253; Art 2295 Louisiana CC of 1870.Google Scholar

27 Larenz (n 25) 351.

28 Dannemann, GMarkesinis, B, and Lorenz, KGerman Law of Obligations Vol I: A Comparative Introduction: The Law of Contracts and Restitution (Clarendon Press Oxford 1997) 44, Kortmann (n 3) 107.Google Scholar

29 Lorenzen, EGNegotiorum Gestio in Roman and Modern Civil Law’ (1927) 13 Cornell LQ 190, 192.Google Scholar

30 § 677 BGB.

31 Kortmann (n 3) 178.

32 BGHZ 40, 28. For duties under foreign law see NJW 1971, 609 (extracted Beatson and Schrage (n 8) 549–52). See Dawson (n 6) 1108, Kortmann (n 3) 107. For a similar rule in Israeli law see [2002] RLR 203.

33 Standard Bank Financial Services v Taylam (1979) 2 SA 383 (C)

34 §685 BGB.

35 Larenz (n 25) 355, Kortmann (n 3) 109.

36 Palandt (n 21) 1068; Stoljar (n 3) 12, 49–51.

37 Voet's Commentarius ad Pandectas 3.5.9.

38 Dawson (n 9) 822–3.

39 They also claimed under §812 BGB for the cost of the flight out.

40 NJW 1971, 609.

41 D.3.5.44 for example.

42 See Palandt (n 21) 1068 and Jauernig (n 24) 737 where the word chosen is nützlich. Van Zyl talks of utiliter coeptum (n 19) ch 1.

43 Jauernig (n 24) 737.

44 Menalco Solis (n 9) 118. He too talks of utiliter coeptum.

45 Art 2295 Louisiana CC coastal Environmental Specialits v Chem-Lig 818 So (2d) 12 (2001). For similar rules in Scots law see Bannatine v Cunninghame (1872) 10 M 319; Erskine 3.3.52–3.

46 § 680 BGB.

47 § 683I BGB.

48 § 683II BGB.

49 This is called unberechtigte Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag in German law. § 684 BGB; Palandt (n 21) 1070; Jauernig (n 24) 738. In South African law see Van Zyl (n 19) 87–95; Encyclopaedia of South African Law (n 24) paras 35–40; Williams Estate v Mollenschoot & Schep [1939] CPD 360; D.3.5.5. This surfaced in scots law in Bankton 1.9.2, but has not featured since.

50 Van Zyl (n 19) 105–10.

51 C.2.18.42. See also D.3.5.8.3, 17.1.40, 3.5.6.3, 12.1.23. The exceptions were the payment of funeral expenses and the repair of a road outside a rented property.

52 Larenz (n 25) 353; Müunchener Kommentar (n 25) 266.

53 Encyclopaedia of South African Law (n 21) vol 9, para 76; there is no general enrichment action in South African law. Nortije v Pool (1966) 3 SA 96 (A).

54 CL Martin ‘Louisiana State Law Institute Proposes Revision of Negotiorum Gestio and Codification of Unjust Enrichment’ (1994) 69 Tulane L Rev 181.

55 ibid 200. Art 2292 Louisiana CC.

56 Zimmermann (n 10) 444.

57 Huber's Jurisprudence 1.28.6; Martin (n 54) 198.

58 Larenz (n 25) 355; Kortmann (n 3) 110.

59 Stair's Institutes 1.8.3; this was a departure from the Roman law Leslie (n 19) 21. Walker suggests remuneration is not available in the modern law. Walker, DPrinciples of Scottish Private Law (4th ednClarendon Press Oxford 1988) 514.Google Scholar

60 See Dawson (n 9) 836.

61 D.3.5.2; Stoljar (n 3) 153–75.

62 Edelman, JGain-Based Damages (Hart Publishing Oxford 2002) 136–45.Google Scholar

63 On the defence of necessity see Murphy, JStreet on Torts (11th ednButterworths London 2003) 94–6.Google Scholar

64 F v West Yorkshire HA [1989] 2 All ER 545 (HL)

65 ibid 565–7.

66 Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (17th ednSweet & Maxwell London 2001) para 3.102. For the corresponding test positive relief see Phelps James & Co v Hill [1891] 1 QB 605Google Scholar

67 Southwark LBC v Williams [1971] 1 Ch 734; Cope v Sharpe (no 2) [1912] 1 KB 496.

68 (1886) 34 Ch D 234; Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 103 (HL) 118–19.

69 ibid 248.

70 Which lies behind many other doctrines—such as that burdens cannot be imposed on third parties by contracts.

71 (1886) 34 Ch D 234, 241.

72 ibid 243, Kortmann (n 3) 113.

73 Dagan, HThe Law and Ethics of Restitution (CUP Cambridge 2004) 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74 McCamus, JDThe Self-Serving Intermeddler and the Law of Restitution’ (1978) 16 Osgoode Hall LJ 515, 519.Google Scholar

75 Re Power's Policies 1 IR 6; This was originally English law as well. Re Leslie (1883) 23 Ch D 552. See also on statutory mechanics' liens McCamus (n 74) 543–50, especially 548–9. Tettenborn, AThe Law of Restitution in England and Ireland (3rd ednCavendish Publishing London 2001) 207.Google Scholar

76 See for earlier hostile dicta Re Tharp (1852) 2 SM & G 578, 65 ER 533, and later dicta Re de Teissier's Settled Estate [1893] 1 Ch 153.

77 Yourell v Hiberninan Bank [1918] AC 372; Re Leslie (1883) 23 Ch D 552; Rotherham, CProprietary Remedies in Context (Hart Publishing Oxford 2002) 315.Google Scholar

78 Dagan (n73) 130–1.

79 Van Zyl (n 19) 105–10. South Africa does not recognize the jurisdictional split between law and equity and therefore these lines are possessory. The availability of a lien is a feature of South African unjustified enrichment law.

80 [1939] ch 286.

81 ibid 321–2.

82 (1884) 15 QBD 60

83 ibid 64–5.

84 Birks, PBHAn Introduction to the law of Restitution (rev ednClarendon Press Oxford 1989) 101–3.Google ScholarPalmer, GEThe Law of Restitution (Little Brown & Co Boston 1978) vol II 359.Google Scholar

85 Nicholson v Chapman (1793) 2 H B1 254, 126 ER 536.

86 Leigh v Dickeson (1884) 15 Ch D 60; Birks, PBHNegotiorum Gestio and the Common Law’ [1971] CLP 110, 113–15. In a different context that concern can be found in the Unsolicited Good and Services Act 1971.Google Scholar

87 Zimmermann (n 10) 435–6.

88 Aitken, LNegotiorum Gestio and the Common Law’ (1988) 11 Sydney L Rev 566, 596.Google Scholar

89 Dawson, FUnjust Enrichment (Little Brown & Co Boston 1951) 139.Google Scholar

90 A Debate reged in the 19th century; Dawson (n 9) 821–2.

91 Zimmermann and du Plessis (n 16) 30. The concern is long standing. BGHZ 47, 370, 371–2; Larenz (n 25) 345.

92 Dagan (n 73) 99–101. On altruism as its own reward see 103–6, and Kortmann (n 3) 88.

93 Burrows (n 4) ch 9. For an alternative and much criticized view see Stoljar, SUnjust Enrichment and Unjust Sacrifice’ (1987) 50 MLR 603, Stoljar (n 3) 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

94 Birks (n 84) 21–2.

95 Birks (n 3) 99. See also Krebs, TA German Contribution to English Enrichment Law’ [1999] RLR 271, 278, discussing S Meier's doctoral thesis in GermanGoogle ScholarMeier, SIrrtum und Zweckfehlung; Das System der Unjust-Gründe bei rechtgrundlosen Leistungen im englischen Recht (JCB Mohr Tübingen 1999);Google ScholarMeier, S and Zimmermann, RJudicial Development of the Law Error Juris, and The Law of Unjustified Enrichment–A View from Germany’ (1999) 155 LQR 556.Google Scholar

96 Owen v Tate [1976] QB 402 (CA), but see Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856, s 5.

97 Mitchell, CThe Law of Contribution and Reimbursement (OUP Oxford 2003) para 3.28. It is sometimes called legal compulsion Burrows (n 4) ch 8;Google ScholarVirgo, GThe Principles of the Law of Restitution (OUP Oxford 1999) 223–48.Google Scholar

98 Moule v Garret (1872) LR 7 Exch 101 would otherwise seem hard to explain or to reconcile with Owen v Tate.

99 Gebhardt v Saunders [1892] 2 QB 452. Burrows (n 4) 294. Jenkins v Tucker (1788) 1 H B1 90, 126 ER 55 would also fit into this category—legal liability to bury the deceased was taken on by another.

100 Birks (n 3) 124.

101 [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 151.

102 ibid 156.

103 Birks (n 3) 46.

104 Barker, KRiddles Remedies and Restitution: Quantifying Gain in Unjust Enrichment Law’ [2001] CLP 255.Google Scholar

105 See generally Burrows (n 4) 18; Dagan (n 73) 140–8.

106 McInnes, M ‘Enrichment Revisited’ in Neyers, J (ed) Understanding Unjust enrichment (Hart Publishing Oxford 2004) 165, 169.Google Scholar

107 Virgo (n 97) 39–40.

108 Mc Innes (n 106) 180.

109 Dagan (n 73) 109.

110 ibid 186–7.

111 Virgo (n 97) 62.

112 Dawson (n 6) 1115–16

113 ibid 1116. We value life under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, for example, but refuse to value it in other areas, such as the ‘wrongful life cases’. See McKay v Essex AHA [1982] QB 116 (CA).

114 Degeling, SRestitutionary Right to Share in Damages (CUP Cambridge 2002) 5371; Kortmann (n 3) 170.Google Scholar

115 Degeling (n 114) 109–10.

116 [1960]2 QB 430; Wilson v McLay (1961) 106 CLR 523.

117 (1960) 76 LQR 187.

118 Burrows (n 4) 314–16; Kortmann (n 3) 155.

119 Surrey Breakdown Ltd v Knight [1999] RTR 84.

120 Birks (n 84) 195–202.

121 Burrow (n 4) 315.

122 ibid 315; Dagan, HIn Defence of Good Samaritan’ (1998) 98 Michigan L Rev 1152.Google Scholar

123 McCamus, JDNecessitous Intervention: The Altruistic Intermeddler and the Law of Restitution’ (1979) 11 Ottawa L Rev 297, 299.Google Scholar

124 I.3.27.1.

125 Re F [1990] 2 AC 1 (HL) 75.

126 Phelps James & Co v Hill [1891] 1 QB 605.

127 The Victor (1865) 13 LT 21.

128 Birks (n 84) 104; id ‘In Defence of Free Acceptance’ in Burrows, AS (ed) Essays on the Law of Restitution (Clarendon Press Oxford 1991) 105.Google ScholarFor Criticism of free acceptance see Burrows, ASFree Acceptance and the Law of Restitution’ (1988) 104 LQR 572.Google Scholar

129 Burrows (n 128) 598; Goff, and Jones, The Law of Restitution (6th ednSweet & Maxwell London 2002) 27–8.Google Scholar

130 Birks, PBH and Mitchell, C ‘Unjust Enrichment’ in Birks, PBH (ed) English Private Law (OUP Oxford 2000) vol 1, para 15.159. These mirror the requirements suggested by a law and economics analysis.Google ScholarLong, RAA Theory of Hypothetical Contracts’ (1984) 94 Yale LJ 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

131 Lorenzen (n 27) 194.

132 Kortmann (n 3) 184.

133 Hope, EWOfficiousness’ (1929) 15 Cornell LQ 25, 52.Google Scholar

134 §679 BGB.

135 Larenz (n 25) 352.

136 Palandt (n 21) 1068; §683 BGB. This is mirrored in Art 2294 Louisiana CC. For breach of this obligation in German law see BGHZ 65, 354.

137 Aitken (n 88) 566.

138 ibid 567.

139 Kortmann (n 3) 164–5.

140 See Street (n 63) 94–6.

141 For a discussion of the tort of negligence and the standard see ibid 247–54.

142 Ersk 3.3.52.

143 Birks and Mitchell (n 130) para 15.160.

144 Goff and Jones (n 129) 458–9; McInnes, MRestitution and Rescue of Life’ (1994) 37 Alberta L Rev 37, 65–6; Dawson (n 6) 1097.Google Scholar

145 Dagan (n 73) 115–17.

146 Zimmermann (n 10) 445–7.

147 Dagan (n 73) 118.

148 ibid 120.

149 Reynolds, FMB (ed) Bowstead and Reynolds The Law of Agency (17th ednSweet & Maxwell London 2001) para 4.002.Google Scholar

150 SirTreitel, GuenterThe Law of Contract (11th ednSweet & Maxwell London 2003) 722.Google Scholar

151 Reynolds, FMBAgency of Necessity’ [1990] JBL 505; Kortmann (n 3) 129–33.Google Scholar

152 See eg Great Northern Railway v Swaffield (1874) LR 9 Ex 132; Surrey Breakdown Ltd v Knight [1999] RTR 84 for a more cautious approach.

153 [1913] 1 KB 103; Munro v Willmott [1949] 1 KB 295. For the modern statutory authority for bailees to sell see Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, ss 12–13.

154 Goode, RCommercial Law (3rd ednPenguin London 2004) 167; Treitel (n 150) 721.Google Scholar

155 For the defence of necessity in tort see Street on Torts (n 63) 92–5.

156 [1982] AC 939.

157 The Unique Mariner [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep 438.

158 The Choko Star [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep 513; Bowstead and Reynolds, however, doubt that the distinction should make such a difference (n 149) para 4.008; Guest, AG (ed) Chitty an Contracts (29th ednSweet & Maxwell London 2004) para 31.033.Google Scholar

159 Bowstead and Reynolds (n 149) para 4.005; Brown, IAuthority and Necessity in the Law of Agency’ (1992) 55 MLR 414, 416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

160 Chitty (n 158) para 31.033. Contrast the old case of Bolton v Prentice (1745) 2 Str 1214, 90 ER 1136.

161 Sealy, LS and Hooley, RCommercial Law (3rd ednButterworths London 2003) 136; McCamus (n 123) 305–6. For the civilian analogue see Dawson (n 9) 824.Google Scholar

162 Rhodes v Fielder Jones & Harrison (1919) 89 LJKB 15. Conversely reimbursement is unavailable where the party exceeds his actual authority. Barron v Fitzgerald 1840 6 Bing NC 201, 133 ER 79.

163 Brown (n 159) 419. This would parallel the Pflicht zur Hilfeleistung in German law.

164 ibid para 4.005; Goff and Jones (n 129) 450.

165 Aitken (n 88) 586.

166 ibid 586.

167 Bowstead and Reynolds (n 149) para 4.006; Chitty (n 158) para 31.036.

168 Bowstead and Reynolds (n 149) para 4.002

169 Ersk III.3.16; Art 2297 Louisiana CC.

170 Lorenzen (n 27) 198. Note however, that Roman law did not have a concept of true agency, or ‘direct representation’ Zimmermann (n 10) 421.

171 Müchener Kommentar (n 25) Band 1 § 164. The rules of ‘agency’ or Vertretungsrecht can be found in § 164ff BGB.

172 Markesinis (n 28) 72, but see Kortmann (n 3) 110. This separation also exists in South African law Encyclopaedia of South African Lae (n 21) vol 1 para 17. On the separation in Scots law see Walker (n 59) 213–15.

173 Jebara v Ottoman Bank [1927] 2 KB 254.

174 AG Ceylon v de Silva [1953] AC 461; United Bank of Kuwait v Hammond [1988] 1 WLR 1051.

175 Kortmann (n 3) 134–6

176 ibid 186.

177 Stewart (n 18) 173.

178 Walker (n 59) 218.

179 Bills of Exchange Act 1882, s 66.

180 Goff and Jones (n 129) 461.

181 Bills of Exchange Act 1882, s 68(5).

182 See Guest, AG (ed) Chalmers and Guest on Bills of Exchange, Cheques and Promissory Notes (15th ednSweet & Maxwell London 1998) paras 1718–23;Google ScholarElliott, N, Odgers, J, and Phillips, JM (eds) Byles on Bills of Exchange and Cheques (27th ednSweet & Maxwell London 2002) para 13.17; Kortmann (n 3) 134.Google Scholar

183 Chitty (n 158) para 34.145.

184 McCamus (n 123) 320.

185 (1841) 7 M&W 595, 151 ER 903.

186 Aitken (n 88) 577–80.

187 D.11.7.12.

188 Aitken (n 88) 571. It provides an exception to the general rule against recovery where the payment was against the express wishes of principal, as did repairs to the outside a rented house D.43.10.3.

189 Marasinghe, MLThe Place of Negotiorum Gestio in English Law’ (1976) 8 Ottawa L Rev 573, 577; Kortmann (n 3) 118–20.Google Scholar

190 (1788) 1 H B1 90, 126 ER 55. See also Nelson v Duncombe (1846) 9 Beav 211, 50 ER 323, Tugwell v Heyman (1812) 3 Camp 299, 170 ER 1389, Rogers v Price (1829) 3 Y&J 28, 148 ER 1080.

191 McInnes (n 144) 54–5.

192 D.3.5.3.5.

193 (1890) 44 Ch D 94; See also Re Gibson (1871) LR 7 Ch App 52, Williams v Wentworth (1842) 5 Beav 325, 49 ER 603. See generally Stoljar (n 3) 76–94.

194 D.3.5.4.

195 Treitel (n 150) ch 13.

196 Ayres and Landry (n 24) 124; Art 2296 Louisiana CC; Leslie (n 19) 34.

197 Re F [1990] 2 AC 1 (HL) 75–6. This also applies to the defence of necessity Clerk and Lindsell (n 66) para 3, 105–6.

198 Albert, RARestitutionary Recovery for Rescuers of Human Life’ (1986) 74 California L Rev 85, 100; McCamus (n 123) 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

199 (1932) 2 DLR 787; Tomlinson v Bentall (1826) 5 B&C 733, 108 ER 274; Lamb v Bunce (1815) 4 M&S 275

200 Albert (n 198) 98–9.

201 Road Traffic Act 1988, s 158(2).

202 McInnes (n 144) 48.

203 Albert (n 198) 104; this is a concern shared in Germany see Larenz (n 25) 355.

204 Larenz (n 25) 355–6; this is not easy to justify Markesinis (n 28) 751; Dawson (n 6) 1126.

205 McInnes (n 144) 66–7.

206 Jaffey, PAccident Car Hire and the Recovery Damages’ [2000] LMCLQ 449. He attempts to broaden that to apply it to the hire of car after an accident, commenting on the decision in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384.Google Scholar

207 Degeling (n 114) 95.

208 ibid 97.

209 ibid ch 8; Degeling deals with tort claims and carers at 195–200; Degeling, SA New Rason for Restitution: The Policy against Accumulation’ (2002) 22 OJLS 435, ‘The Defence of Passing On a Policies against Accumulation: Consumers and Unjust Enrichment’ [2004] RLR 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

210 Degeling (n 114) 109–10.

211 Kortmann (n 3) 176–7.

212 Williams, RPreventing Unjust Enrichment’ [2000] RLR 492.Google Scholar

213 Rose, FGeneral Average as Restitution’ (1997) 113 LQR 569.Google Scholar

214 ibid 570.

215 Note, however, that in Scots law Walker separates the two—salvage is dealt with Walker (n 59) 514–20; Dawson (n 6) 1098.

216 [1988] AC 831 (HL) 857 (Lord Brandon).

217 [1987] QB 687 (CA) 709.

218 See also The Telemachus [1957] P 47.

219 Rose, FRestitution for the Rescuer’ (1989) 9 OJLS 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

220 Walker (n 59) 514–20.

221 McCamus (n 123)315; Sorrel v Paget [1950] 1 KB 252; this is not so in cases of the defence of necessity Clerk and Lindsell (n 64) paras 3, 109–10.

222 Sachs v Miklos [1948] 2 KB 25; Birks and Mitchell (n 130) para 15.158; Jaffey, PThe Nature and Scope of Restitution (Hart Publishing Oxford 2000) 80.Google Scholar

223 Dagan (n 73) 91; Palmer (n 84) 369.

224 (1874) LR 9 Ex 132; Chapman v Champman [1954] AC 429.

225 [1911] 2 KB 528.

226 Sheehan, DNatural Obligations in English Law’ [2004] LMCLQ 171, 181.Google Scholar

227 (1793) 2 H B1 254, 128 ER 536; Kortmann (n 3) 111–12.

228 Martin, JHanbury and Martin Modern Equity (17th ednSweet & Maxwell London 2005) 607.Google Scholar

229 Re Spurling [1966] 1 WLR 920, Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch 241. Contrast Falcke v Scottish Imperial Insurance (1886) 34 Ch D 234.

230 Hanbury and Martin (n 228) 47–8; Kortmann (n 3) 156–8.

231 Stoljar (n 3) 10.

232 [1996] 2 All ER 672.

233 Now replaced by Trustee Act 2000, s 31(1).

234 Ersk 3.3.52–4.

235 [1981] 3 All ER 220.

236 ibid 223 (Fox LJ).

237 [1966] 3 WLR 1009 (HL); O'Sullivan v Management Agency [1985] QB 428; contrast Guinness v Saunders [1990] 2 AC 663.

238 [1964] 1 WLR 993, 1018.

239 [1989] ch 32.

240 ibid 53.

241 Excluding salvage.

2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Negotiorum Gestio: A Civilian Concept in the Common Law?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Negotiorum Gestio: A Civilian Concept in the Common Law?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Negotiorum Gestio: A Civilian Concept in the Common Law?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *