FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3124866898> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3124866898 startingPage "945" @default.
• W3124866898 abstract "Promises made.Promises not kept.Breach to seize a more profitable deal.Default - Pay expectancy damages.Why not - Disgorge defendant's gain through breach?If, and when, the law permits disgorgement for contractual will say much about the nature of contract law and the role of moral judgment within it.1I. Introduction: Contractual Disgorgement Remedy as WatershedThe muse of restitution enraptures the rest of the world's legal scholars. Yet, America, the nineteenth-century birthplace of restitution theory, resists her lure.2 This Article contributes to what I hope will become an American restitution revival.3 The instant comparative analysis focuses on an ongoing American blackletter-law endeavor to follow the Commonwealth's lead on restitutionary disgorgement as a remedy for contractual breach.Ultimately, the American effort is a step in the right direction, but it may not go far enough. American legal scholars should embrace the complexity and attraction of restitution's riddles. We should call it to our imagination. The American proposal for restitutionary contractual disgorgement is worthy of serious scholarly attention, praise, and critique. It will admirably enhance the stable of alternative remedies for contract plaintiffs. But we should explore its potential shortcomings, as drafted, as well as its moral underpinnings. Only then can we glean the deeper lessons from the Commonwealth's lead and embrace the consequences of our new path.Disgorgement of defendant's gain is not traditionally available as a common-law remedy for of contract.4 At least two legal events telegraph a restitutionary sea change for the Commonwealth and the United States. The first is the House of Lords' decision in Attorney General v. Blake? permitting a gain-based remedy for of contract.6 The Blake decision marked a watershed ... for the award of gain-based remedies for of contract.7 Accordingly, for England, Blake demonstrates that [i]t is now clear that of contract is capable of supporting gain-based relief.8The second pivotal legal event is Section 39 of the pending American Restatement (Third) ofRestitution and Unjust Enrichment? Section 39 extends a warm welcome to contractual disgorgement for the United States, while careful to answer the post-5/aA:e task of defining the various situations in which disgorgement actually will be available.11 This section introduces limited authorization for a restitutionary remedy of disgorgement where one profits from an opportunistic breach of contract.12Section 39, although likely narrow in its application, represents a significant theoretical challenge to the popular United States conception of Holmesian-based contract law. 13 Justice Holmes is the intellectual godparent of an entire canon of contract law scholarship in the United States. His theories undermine core notions regarding contract law's non-interest in morally judging the defendant's mental state, and thus its rejection of efforts to punish defendants for breaching contracts.14 Instead, as classically conceived, contract defendants prepare to pay expectancy damages if they choose to the ordinary - not unique - contract.15 Justice Holmes's influence extends to the law and economics movement and may lend, in the minds of many, a historical platform upon which efficient theory rests.16 Efficient theory advances a Holmesian vision because of the dominance that it gives to the expectation measure of damages in cases of contract breach: the promisor is allowed to at will so long as he leaves the promisee as well off after as he would have been had the promise been performed, while any additional gain is retained by the contract breaker.17 Section 39's intersection with the classical conception, as well as with efficient theory, should give serious pause to American contract, restitution, and remedies scholars. …" @default.
• W3124866898 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3124866898 creator A5086674919 @default.
• W3124866898 date "2008-07-01" @default.
• W3124866898 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W3124866898 title "Commonwealth of Perspective on Restitutionary Disgorgement forBreach of Contract" @default.
• W3124866898 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W3124866898 type Work @default.
• W3124866898 sameAs 3124866898 @default.
• W3124866898 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W3124866898 countsByYear W31248668982016 @default.
• W3124866898 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3124866898 hasAuthorship W3124866898A5086674919 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConcept C11620315 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConcept C2777381055 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConcept C2777826127 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConcept C2778392301 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConcept C2778877846 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConceptScore W3124866898C11620315 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConceptScore W3124866898C144024400 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConceptScore W3124866898C17744445 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConceptScore W3124866898C190253527 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConceptScore W3124866898C199539241 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConceptScore W3124866898C200635333 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConceptScore W3124866898C2777381055 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConceptScore W3124866898C2777826127 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConceptScore W3124866898C2777834853 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConceptScore W3124866898C2778392301 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConceptScore W3124866898C2778877846 @default.
• W3124866898 hasConceptScore W3124866898C97460637 @default.
• W3124866898 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W3124866898 hasLocation W31248668981 @default.
• W3124866898 hasOpenAccess W3124866898 @default.
• W3124866898 hasPrimaryLocation W31248668981 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W100804534 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W1482420143 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W1506516059 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W1716886166 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W2092387034 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W2101656037 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W2190308187 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W2272687555 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W2299611925 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W2413715396 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W2586073288 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W2912781690 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W2951382998 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W306256393 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W3121726861 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W3122931790 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W3123989965 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W3124522749 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W1856655805 @default.
• W3124866898 hasRelatedWork W3124064185 @default.
• W3124866898 hasVolume "65" @default.
• W3124866898 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3124866898 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3124866898 magId "3124866898" @default.
• W3124866898 workType "article" @default.