Talk:Restitution

This article was nominated for merging with Unjust enrichment on 22 May 2023. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Moved.

I'm thinking about doing a fairly drastic overhaul of this page, which I think is severely lacking in structure.

The first thing I would like to do is make clearer the distinction between "restitution for wrongs" and "unjust enrichment by subtraction".

Secondly, I would like to discuss the five principal issues that need to be considered in an action based on unjust enrichment. These are (1) Was the defendant enriched? (2) Was the enrichment at the claimant's expense? (3) Was the enrichment unjust? (4)Does the defendant have a defence? (5) What kinds of remedy are open to the claimant?

Does anyone have any objection to me doing this?

I should point out that I am an English lawyer and I am not familiar with the American law of restitution. However, I do believe that the above 5-stage analysis is at least compatible with Australian law and Canadian law. If what I am proposing would be misleading in America please let me know!

Go for it fella. Did the Aussies go off on a completely different frolic of their own? Either way, suggest explictly identifying as Brit law. RealityCheck 12:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. As promised, I have redone this page. I have also nearly finished preparing my overhaul of the unjust enrichment page and should complete that within the next week. Comments, suggestions and complaints on the new restitution page welcome. I saved a copy of the old page as it was immediately before I removed it, so we can revert to the old version if the consensus of opinion demands it. User:Tinnymeup 00:01, 23 January 2006

Restitution hi School[edit]

Will someone please write about Diane Gossen's Restitution in an educational setting. (205.250.167.76 02:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I just read about it and it sounds awful, just another form of behaviorist control hidden beneath flowery lovey-dovey language. I couldn't be unbiased if I wrote about it. It sucks big time.--ෆාට් බුබුල (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dont merge[edit]

because it has "Restitution for wrongs" also. Iranway (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resitution in Civil Law countries[edit]

In Russia the term "restitution" has another meaninig. It means that in case a transaction is declared by a court to be null and void, the parties are obliged to return to each other everything received under such a transaction.

It is possible that in other civil law countries "restitution" also has the same meaning. Should not all this be mentioned in the article? Olegwiki (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if no one claims the restitution or they cant find them what happens to the money — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.19.187 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with unjust enrichment?[edit]

Speaking from an American law perspective, it makes no sense to have separate articles for the law of "unjust enrichment" and the law of "restitution." Both refer to the same body of jurisprudence, at least in the United States, as evidenced by the title of the American Law Institute's "Restatement of the Law (Third): Restitution and Unjust Enrichment." Thus, insofar as American law is concerned, discussion of the two should be merged in a single article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.14.76 (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

Seems someone "fixed" the overly long intro by removing it altogether. Why isn't this considered vandalism? It happens far too often. People who do this should be banned.--ෆාට් බුබුල (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]