Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (3):579-598 (2010)

This review article examines R Chambers, C Mitchell and J Penner (eds), Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Unjust Enrichment. These sophisticated essays suggest that a corrective, bipolar analysis of autonomous unjust enrichment is broadly right. However, the normative rationale is complex. From the plaintiff’s perspective, there are autonomy-based grounds for drawing an analogy to voidable rather than void property transactions. For similar reasons, the role of a corresponding-enrichment requirement primarily concerns identification of the defendant rather than establishing injustice
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/ojls/gqq024
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 60,021
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
7 ( #1,020,801 of 2,433,548 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #468,801 of 2,433,548 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes