FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W201364360> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W201364360 startingPage "265" @default.
• W201364360 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION: THE EXAGGERATED DEMISE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT Restitution is becoming a lost art, observes Professor KuIl: Confusion over the content of restitution carries significant adverse consequences. To put it bluntly, American lawyers today (fudges and law professors included) do not know what restitution is .... The technical competence of published opinions in straightforward restitution cases has noticeably declined; judges and lawyers sometimes fail to grasp the rudiments of the doctrine even when they know where to find it.1 The law of restitution and unjust enrichment is widely perceived as needlessly archaic, complex, and boring. If restitution and unjust enrichment were merely archaic,2 they could be safely ignored. To be fair, they are complex and can be confusing (although the legal community sometimes needs a little complexity, if only to help avoid the minimum wage). Nevertheless, some corporate litigators are applying this body of law to their clients' great advantage in complex litigation, regulatory litigation, and intellectual property. This article will show that unjust enrichment offers alternative causes of action and alternative remedies. Unjust enrichment is not suited for all or even most corporate claims, and it can increase the unpredictability of the remedy; but to ignore unjust enrichment is to ignore the success of those who have applied the doctrine and the danger of being unprepared to defend against significant claims. As confusing and complex as it may be perceived, the doctrine is becoming even more relevant in corporate litigation today. For example, federal agencies in the 1980s and 1990s developed the claim of unjust enrichment to seek redress for the violation of federal regulatory statutes. Agencies like the sec, the Department of Energy, and the CFTC successfully established implied jurisdiction for claims of unjust enrichment in equity unless the agency's enabling statutes precluded relief in equity. In its report for the year 2003, the FTC reported that it had filed approximately 87 such claims, that it had been awarded about $900 million from prior claims, and that the agency had determined to redeploy more of its resources from administrative hearings to civil litigation.3 The FDA has not filed a large number of claims but recently negotiated a $500 million settlement with Schering-Plough on a claim of unjust enrichment for that company's breach of the agency's manufacturing standards.4 Restitution and unjust enrichment do not have to be boring. The spirit behind the law of unjust enrichment is to apply the law outside of the box and fill in the cracks where common civil law and statutes fail to achieve justice. Sometimes this means that a party to complex litigation needs to employ the law of unjust enrichment to outwit a wrongdoer that has tried to outsmart the system which, according to Professor Andrew Kull,5 can produce a charming result.6 A. Boring? Judge Kozinski's opinion in Kremen v. Network Solutions Inc.7 is an example of a non-boring discussion of remedies in equity and unjust enrichment. He recounts the struggles between Gary Kremen and Stephen Cohen who fought for control of a domain name in 1994, www.sex.com. Gary Kremen is an internet who contacted the domain name registrar Network Solutions and registered the new domain name for free. At that time Stephen Cohen, an entrepreneur of a different stripe, was still serving his prison sentence for impersonating a bankruptcy lawyer. Upon his release, he maneuvered to gain control of Cohen's website. Cohen wrote to the registrar, representing that Kremen had decided not to use the website and that his company had agreed for ownership of the website to be transferred to Cohen. Without pursuing sufficient due diligence, Network Solutions transferred ownership of the site to Cohen who started up business operations. Kremen first sued Cohen for legal title to the website and monetary remedies and later filed a claim against Network Solutions for its role in the misappropriation of his website. …" @default.
• W201364360 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W201364360 creator A5072468716 @default.
• W201364360 date "2007-04-01" @default.
• W201364360 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W201364360 title "How Restitution and Unjust Enrichment Can Improve Your Corporate Claim" @default.
• W201364360 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W201364360 type Work @default.
• W201364360 sameAs 201364360 @default.
• W201364360 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W201364360 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W201364360 hasAuthorship W201364360A5072468716 @default.
• W201364360 hasConcept C11620315 @default.
• W201364360 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W201364360 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W201364360 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W201364360 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W201364360 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W201364360 hasConcept C2777720223 @default.
• W201364360 hasConcept C2778392301 @default.
• W201364360 hasConceptScore W201364360C11620315 @default.
• W201364360 hasConceptScore W201364360C144024400 @default.
• W201364360 hasConceptScore W201364360C17744445 @default.
• W201364360 hasConceptScore W201364360C190253527 @default.
• W201364360 hasConceptScore W201364360C199539241 @default.
• W201364360 hasConceptScore W201364360C2776211767 @default.
• W201364360 hasConceptScore W201364360C2777720223 @default.
• W201364360 hasConceptScore W201364360C2778392301 @default.
• W201364360 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W201364360 hasLocation W2013643601 @default.
• W201364360 hasOpenAccess W201364360 @default.
• W201364360 hasPrimaryLocation W2013643601 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W126211456 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W1492433108 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W1498443939 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W1548119635 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W1604912313 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W224626333 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W2264764950 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W256498343 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W2949913140 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W3122429425 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W3122473422 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W3122561011 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W336268457 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W43019010 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W78551948 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W81663359 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W828163375 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W852504586 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W908014086 @default.
• W201364360 hasRelatedWork W3122585268 @default.
• W201364360 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W201364360 isParatext "false" @default.
• W201364360 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W201364360 magId "201364360" @default.
• W201364360 workType "article" @default.