| Exall v Partridge | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of King's Bench |
| Decided | 8 JUNE 1799 |
| Citation(s) | (1799) 8 TR 308, 101 ER 1405, [1775-1802] All ER Rep 341 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Lord Kenyon CJ, Grose, Lawrence and Le Blanc JJ |
Exall v Partridge (1799) 101 ER 1405 is an English unjust enrichment law case, concerning enrichment through discharge of a debt, and the unjust factor of legal compulsion to give another a benefit.
Exall left his carriage on Partridge's land for repair. Partridge, a coachbuilder, was a co-tenant with the other defendants but the only one in occupation after having been assigned their interests. The rent was not paid and the landlord, Mr Welch seized Exall's carriage as distress, as was lawful. Exall paid the rent to recover the carriage and then sued Partridge and the other defendants to get his money back. [1]
The Court of King's Bench held the money could be recovered. Lord Kenyon CJ gave the first speech.
It has been said that where one person is benefited by the payment of money by another, the law raises an assumpsit against the former; but that I deny: if that were so, and I owed a sum of money to a friend, and an enemy chose to pay that debt, the latter might convert himself into my debtor nolens volens... none of those points affect the present question. As the plaintiff put his goods on the premises, knowing the interests of the defendants, and thereby placed himself in a situation where he was liable to pay this money, without the concurrence of two of the defendants, I thought at the trial that it was money paid to the use of [Partridge] only; but on that point I have since doubted; and I rather think that the opinion I gave at the trial was not well founded.
Grose J concurred.
The question is, whether the payment made by the plaintiff, under these circumstance, were such a one from which the law will imply a promise by the three defendants to repay? I think it was... The plaintiff could not have relieved himself from the distress without paying the rent: it was not therefore a voluntary, but a compulsory payment. Under these circumstances, the law implies a promise by the three defendants to repay the plaintiff; and, on this short ground, I am of the opinion that the action may be maintained.
Lawrence J concurred. So did Le Blanc J.
by compulsion of law he was obliged to pay that debt; and therefore, I think he has his remedy against the three persons who by law were bound to pay, and who did not pay this money.
A quasi-contract is a fictional contract recognised by a court. The notion of a quasi-contract can be traced to Roman law and is still a concept used in some modern legal systems. Quasi Contract laws have been deduced from the Latin statement "Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena jactura", which proclaims that no man should grow rich out of another person's loss. It was one of the central doctrines of Roman law.
Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned". In the context of contract law, it means something along the lines of "reasonable value of services".
The forms of action were the different procedures by which a legal claim could be made during much of the history of the English common law. Depending on the court, a plaintiff would purchase a writ in Chancery which would set in motion a series of events eventually leading to a trial in one of the medieval common law courts. Each writ entailed a different set of procedures and remedies which together amounted to the "form of action".
In laws of equity, unjust enrichment occurs when one person is enriched at the expense of another in circumstances that the law sees as unjust. Where an individual is unjustly enriched, the law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make restitution, subject to defences such as change of position. Liability for an unjust enrichment arises irrespective of wrongdoing on the part of the recipient. The concept of unjust enrichment can be traced to Roman law and the maxim that "no one should be benefited at another's expense": nemo locupletari potest aliena iactura or nemo locupletari debet cum aliena iactura.
Replevin or claim and delivery is a legal remedy, which enables a person to recover personal property taken wrongfully or unlawfully, and to obtain compensation for resulting losses.
Assumpsit, or more fully, action in assumpsit, was a form of action at common law used to enforce what are now called obligations arising in tort and contract; and in some common law jurisdictions, unjust enrichment. The origins of the action can be traced to the 14th century, when litigants seeking justice in the royal courts turned from the writs of covenant and debt to the trespass on the case.
Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd[1942] UKHL 4 is a leading House of Lords decision on the doctrine of frustration in English contract law.
The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.
Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon, the Mikhail Lermontov case, is a leading Australian contract law case, on the incorporation of exclusion clauses and damages for breach of contract or restitution for unjust enrichment.
Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673 is an English contract law case, concerning substantial performance of a contract and restitution for unjust enrichment.
Cutter v Powell (1795) 101 ER 573 is an English contract law case, concerning substantial performance of a contract.
Hussey v Palmer [1972] EWCA Civ 1 is an English trusts law case of the Court of Appeal. It concerned the equitable remedy of constructive trusts. It invokes the equitable maxim, "equity regards the substance and not the form."
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC[1996] UKHL 12, [1996] AC 669 is a leading English trusts law case concerning the circumstances under which a resulting trust arises. It held that such a trust must be intended, or must be able to be presumed to have been intended. In the view of the majority of the House of Lords, presumed intention to reflect what is conscionable underlies all resulting and constructive trusts.
Foskett v McKeown[2000] UKHL 29 is a leading case on the English law of trusts, concerning tracing and the availability of proprietary relief following a breach of trust.
Re Diplock or Ministry of Health v Simpson [1951] AC 251 is an English trusts law and unjust enrichment case, concerning tracing and an action for money had and received.
Peel v Canada [1992] 3 SCR 762 is a Canadian unjust enrichment law case, concerning the nature of an enrichment.
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Birmingham CC [1996] 4 All ER 733 is an English unjust enrichment law case, concerning to what extent enrichment of the defendant must be at the expense of the claimant. It rejected a defence of "passing on" the gain against a claim of unjust enrichment.
Kingstreet Investments Ltd v New Brunswick [2007] 1 SCR 3 is a Canadian unjust enrichment case, concerning to what extent enrichment of the defendant must be at the expense of the claimant.
Relfo Ltd v Varsani [2014] EWCA Civ 360 is an English unjust enrichment law case, concerning to what extent enrichment of the defendant must be at the expense of the claimant.
Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Bur 1005 is a foundational case in the law of restitution holding that in certain circumstances such as when money is paid by mistake, for failed consideration or under oppression; the law will allow the money to be recovered.