Pitted Against Each Other? Mistaken Transactions in Unjust Enrichment and Equity
| dc.contributor.author | Graham, Tom | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-06-20T13:27:51Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2019-06-20T13:27:51Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.identifier.citation |
Graham, T. (2019). 'Pitted Against Each Other? Mistaken Transactions in Unjust Enrichment and Equity', The Plymouth Law & Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 11, p. 58-72. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2054-149X | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/14345 | |
| dc.description.abstract |
This paper seeks to identify and examine the extent to which there are substantive differences between the common law and equitable tests for non-contractual mistaken transfers. As the title suggests, the discussion references the case of Pitt v Holt as invoking the analogy of law and equity being ‘pitted’ against each other. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | University of Plymouth | en_US |
| dc.rights | Attribution 3.0 United States | * |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/ | * |
| dc.subject | equity v common law | en_US |
| dc.subject | unjust enrichment | en_US |
| dc.subject | mistake | en_US |
| dc.subject | rescission | en_US |
| dc.subject | Pitt v Holt | en_US |
| dc.title | Pitted Against Each Other? Mistaken Transactions in Unjust Enrichment and Equity | en_US |
| plymouth.volume | 11 | |
| plymouth.journal | The Plymouth Law & Criminal Justice Review |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 3.0 United States