- Abstract:
-
The law of unjust enrichment is a subject of intense doctrinal debate. While it has received increasing theoretical attention, deep disagreement remains about its conceptual and normative roots. Charlie Webb’s Reason and Restitution,1 the product of many years’ work, provides a feature-length theoretical discussion of mistaken payments, generally taken to be a central case of unjust enrichment. We should take it seriously. I found the book’s arguments engaging and thoughtprovoking, even when ...
Expand abstract - Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
- Version:
- Accepted manuscript
- Files:
-
-
(pdf, 108.3KB)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.1111/1468-2230.12234
-
Version unsuitable
-
We have not obtained a suitable full-text for a given research output. See this page for more information.
-
Recently completed
-
Sometimes content is held in ORA but is unavailable for a fixed period of time to comply with the policies and wishes of rights holders.
-
Permissions
-
All content made available in ORA should comply with relevant rights, such as copyright. See this page for more information.
-
Clearance
-
Some thesis volumes scanned as part of the digitisation scheme funded by Dr Leonard Polonsky are currently unavailable due to sensitive material or uncleared third-party copyright content. We are attempting to contact authors whose theses are affected.
- Publisher:
- Wiley Publisher's website
- Journal:
- Modern Law Review Journal website
- Volume:
- 79
- Issue:
- 6
- Pages:
- 1116-1136
- Publication date:
- 2016-11-21
- Acceptance date:
- 2016-08-13
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
1468-2230
- ISSN:
-
0026-7961
- Pubs id:
-
pubs:661161
- URN:
-
uri:1d781da1-a6da-417b-bc32-8f43d497b0a1
- UUID:
-
uuid:1d781da1-a6da-417b-bc32-8f43d497b0a1
- Local pid:
- pubs:661161
- Keywords:
- Copyright holder:
- © 2016 Wilmot-Smith. The Modern Law Review © 2016 The Modern Law Review Limited.
- Copyright date:
- 2016
- Notes:
- This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Wilmot-Smith, F. (2016), Reasons? For Restitution?. The Modern Law Review, 79: 1116–1136, which has been published in final form at 10.1111/1468-2230.12234. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
Journal article
Reasons? For Restitution?
Actions
Access Document
Why is the content I wish to access not available via ORA?
Bibliographic data (the information relating to research outputs) and full-text items (e.g. articles, theses, reports, etc.) arrive in ORA from several different sources. Unfortunately we are not able to make available the full-text for every research output.
Please contact the ORA team (
) if you have queries regarding unavailable content OR if you are aware of a full-text copy we can make available.
) if you have queries regarding unavailable content OR if you are aware of a full-text copy we can make available.
Content may be unavailable for the following four reasons
Alternative access to the full-text
You may be able to access the full-text directly from the publisher's website using the 'Publisher Copy' link in the 'Links & Downloads' box from a research output's ORA record page. This method may require an institutional or individual subscription to the journal/resource.
Authors
Bibliographic Details
Item Description
Terms of use
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record