Australia Law : Restitution - Research Paper Example

The decisions of the New South Wales Supreme Court which told that one can order restitution of payments made in response to a threat of breaking a contract. In the case of Australian authority, this principle was substantially established, but it was not like this in the case of a common-law state; the English Authority. This can be considered as the main difference between Australia and another common law country. There are some instances like that of Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd that did not match with the aforesaid approval.

It was recognized by High Courts that as far as equity and conscience were considered the free acceptance was the basis of unjust enrichment. By some experts like Birks, this above case is regarded as the antithesis to enrichment law. It was perceived as conscience-based equity which confused the way and means of compensating the losses and unjustifiable gains. But in this paper, this was considered as a pessimistic view. The view of the application of conscience and unstructured discretion, which was long held in Australian law of restitution, was also discussed.

The themes which are more significant will be covered along with examining different cases in Australian and common law countries like Britain. This article differentiates the common of unjust free acceptance from its equal counterparts. It was recognized by the High Court in the Pavey case that unjust enrichment was a unifying legal concept in Australia. It was considered important for the emancipation of request and for the analysis of unjust enrichment. The handling of claims of restitution can also limit the possibilities of failure of necessities.

The free acceptance of the benefit which was a result of an unenforceable oral agreement was considered as a critical element in the Law of unjust enrichment and in the claims of restitution. This was considered an introduction to the law of restitution.