000			01411cab a22002055a 4500
001			L137251
008			070326e2007 xxk 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u137251
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aKlein, Rudi
245	0	0	_aRestitution needs a test case
260			_c2007
490			_aConstruction News _v(7010) 22 March 2007, 32(1)
520			_aExamines the law of restitution. Discusses a situation that arose between a contractor carrying out refurbishment work on a pub, the brewery and the licensees. The licensees were contracted to pay the contractor, but went bankrupt, and the brewery argued it had no responsibility to pay the contractors. The brewery substantially gained at the contractor?s expense as the contractor did not have the funds to challenge this through the courts. Notes that a quantum meruit claim where a contract has not been concluded is regarded as a claim in restitution. Also points out that for a restitutionary claim to succeed, it must be clear that the client has benefited from the work carried out by the subcontract and that it was unjust for the client to retain the benefit of the work. Argues that a test case is required to clarify this grey area of law.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aLAW OF RESTITUTION
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
942			_n0
999			_c78568 _d78568