the Irish for rights

What is unjust enrichment? is it comedy?

Charlie Webb poses the provocative question “What is Unjust Enrichment?” in the title of an important piece just published in (2009) 29 (2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 215-243. His basic point is that whilst the existence of a law of Restitution concerned with reversing unjust enrichments is largely uncontroversial, the ability of unjust enrichment to account for all restitutionary claims is far less so, and he therefore addresses the question of what role a conception of unjust enrichment can and should play in presenting and justifying the modern law of Restitution. Moreover, an excellent Irish perspective on this question is provided by Laura FarrellThe Future of the Law of Restitution in Ireland – the Unjust Question(2008) 15(10) Commercial Law Practitioner 239.

Small image of a cauliflower, via WikipediaWhen I finished Webb’s piece, I went on to read some of the essays in The Fifth Remedies Discussion Forum published in 42 (1) Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (2008) (currently here, but soon probably here), and whilst I was on the website, I took the opportunity to go back and look at the previous Remedies Forum also hosted by that Review. That earlier one was largely devoted to the Law of Restitution, and one of its themes was was that this subject should find a more prominent home in law school curricula, a sentiment with which I entirely agree. For example, Michael Kelly argued (pdf) that more of it should be taught in compulsory Contract Law courses; whilst David Partlett and Russell Weaver invoked Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings (books | movies) to suggest that the “ancient wisdom” of Restitution has been lost among US scholars and ought to be restored to its rightful place at the centre of legal learning.

However, the most entertaining piece in this vein is Elaine ShobenSpinning Restitution: From Cauliflower to Coconut” 36 Loyola LA L Rev 1027 (2003) (pdf). Here’s the abstract:

Teaching restitution is a challenge at many levels, but the first problem is getting students to take the course. This Article presents a tongue-in-cheek method for advertising the subject to students in order to convince them of the value of learning restitution theory while still in school. It is a humorous commentary on the problem in legal education of making a dull and difficult subject like restitution appealing to modern students.

Small image of a coconut, via WikipediaHer article begins:

Restitution needs some public relations work. The advent of the sexy class phenomenon in American law schools is bad news for a subject like Restitution. … How can Restitution … compete against more inviting courses like Sports Law … Law in the Age of Technology, and Law and Literature …[?]

This is entirely true, and the phenomenon is not limited to American law schools. With this competition, the problem is that

… students fill their plates too high with the palate-pleasers at the course buffet and they forget the vegetables—those courses that provide the basic fiber of the legal profession. Restitution, of course, is a vegetable. And a tough one at that. Rather like cauliflower.

Shoben hastens to reassure us that she likes cauliflower, and so do I, but then we both like Restitution as well. Indeed, Webb’s piece is probably a good example of the kind of important analysis that students find tough, like cauliflower. So Shoben identifies two ways to make the students more likely to eat their greens: advertise Restitution as the salvation of lawyers in a tough spot, much as the coconut is for the Tom Hanks character is the movie Cast Away, or present Restitution as fun and inherently zany because many of the famous cases in the subject involve bizarre and amusing fact situations. Now you know why cauliflowers and coconuts feature in the title of her piece, and if you want some more tangentially academic distraction relating to coconuts, then check this post out.

Anyway, as between the coconuts and the just plain nuts, Shoben plumps for the second approach, and presents some amusing strategies to bolster it. And this got me wondering: what are the fun and zany Restitution cases with bizarre and amusing fact situations from Ireland, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand? If you’re a Restitution lawyer reading this (and there must be some, surely? Steve? Eagle?), why not make a suggestion (or several) in the comments. According as cases occur to me, I’ll do the same. And pretty soon we may have some non-US cases to parallel Shoben’s US list on which we can rely in our sales pitch for new improved comic, wacky and entertaining Restitution courses.

In the meantime, Webb’s piece is very important in helping to understand the nature of the Restitution, whilst Shoben’s piece is it an enjoyable and engaging read for anyone who teaches the subject. They are both, in their different ways, essential reading.

7 Responses to “What is unjust enrichment? is it comedy?”

  1. Eoin says:

    One of Elaine Shoben’s zany cases is Snepp v US 444 US 507 (1980). In the UK, AG v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268, [2000] UKHL 45 (27 July 2000) is an obvious equivalent. Both concern colourful spy memoirs. And much fun could also be had with two post-Blake cases: Experience Hendrix Llc v PPX Enterprises Inc [2003] EWCA Civ 323 (20 March 2003) and WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc [2007] EWCA Civ 286 (02 April 2007). When it comes to great guitarists, cuddly pandas, and manic wrestlers, what’s not to like?

  2. Steve says:

    The lack of good frivolous reasons for taking the concept seriously is not a problem in itself; neither is the lack of non-frivolous reasons. It is the joint of effect of the two that poses the problem.

  3. Legal Eagle says:

    There’s a good US one about Elvis’ gold plated piano in the account of profits for breach of contract category. I’ll have to search out the case citation. It cracked me up.

    When I was trying to get people at my old firm to come to a talk I was giving on unjust enrichment, I wrote a leaflet saying, “Do you know about Unjust Enrichment? Do you want to learn more about how to become Unjustly Enriched?” I got a full house.

  4. Eoin says:

    That will be one to add to Elaine Shoben’s list of zany US cases. And I suppose that the amounts of money underlying the swaps cases can make the mind boggle. But that’s a bit serious, and I was wondering whether there are any fun ones?

  5. antoin says:

    Surely restitution is where the money is? Does that alone not make it sexy?

  6. Legal Eagle says:

    148 Invest. Group, Inc v Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. 54 F 3d 777 (6th Cir. 1995).

    The case involved a gold plated piano which had belonged to the King, but which was now owned by a Mr Brodnax. Mr Brodnax leased the piano to Elvis Presley Enterprises, which operates Graceland. The lease gave EPE the right to display and promote the piano. However, EPE was not to sell photos, souvenirs or any other commercial items with regard to the piano without Mr Brodnax’s consent. The gift shop at Graceland breached that condition and made a profit of US$110,000 from the sale of souvenirs etc. Mr Brodnax sold the piano to 148 Invest. Group and also assigned his cause of action to them. They successfully gained the entire profit from the sale of the souvenirs. The Court analysed it not as a disgorgement case but as a case of expectation damages, saying:

    Though Brodnax admitted that, if EPE had sought his consent, he and EPE would have negotiated an agreement that, in all likelihood, would have been a royalty agreement, the district court properly concluded that EPE’s conduct deprived Brodnax of his bargained-for right to refuse consent. Accordingly, the district court properly determined the damages attributable to EPE’s breach.

    Of course, I see it as a case of disgorgement damages for breach of a negative covenant.

  7. Legal Eagle says:

    Antoin – LOL – that’s what I think!!!

Leave a Reply



Me in a hatHi there! Thanks for dropping by. I’m Eoin O’Dell, and this is my blog: Cearta.ie – the Irish for rights.

“Cearta” really is the Irish word for rights, so the title provides a good sense of the scope of this blog.

In general, I write here about private law, free speech, and cyber law; and, in particular, I write about Irish law and education policy.

Academic links


  • RSS Feed
  • RSS Feed
  • Subscribe via Email
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Archives by month

Categories by topic

My recent tweets

Blogroll (or, really, a non-blogroll)

What I'd like for here is a simple widget that takes the list of feeds from my existing RSS reader and displays it here as a blogroll. Nothing fancy. I'd love a recommendation, if you have one.

I had built a blogroll here on my Google Reader RSS subscriptions. Google Reader produced a line of html for each RSS subscription category, each of which I pasted here. So I had a list of my subscriptions as my blogroll, organised by category, which updated whenever I edited Google Reader. Easy peasy. However, with the sad and unnecessary demise of that product, so also went this blogroll. Please take a moment to mourn Google Reader. If there's an RSS reader which provides a line of html for the list of subscriptions, or for each RSS subscription category as Google Reader did, I'd happily use that. So, as I've already begged, I'd love a recommendation, if you have one.

Meanwhile, please bear with me until I find a new RSS+Blogroll solution




Creative Commons License

This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. I am happy for you to reuse and adapt my content, provided that you attribute it to me, and do not use it commercially. Thanks. Eoin

Credit where it’s due

The image in the banner above is a detail from a photograph of the front of Trinity College Dublin night taken by Melanie May.

Others whose technical advice and help have proven invaluable in keeping this show on the road include Dermot Frost, Karlin Lillington, Daithí Mac Síthigh, and Antoin Ó Lachtnáin.

Thanks to Blacknight for hosting.