Thinking About Some Scots Law: Lord Rodger and Unjustified Enrichment
Thinking About Some Scots Law: Lord Rodger and Unjustified Enrichment
This chapter assesses Alan Rodger's contribution to the Scots law of unjustified enrichment. It focuses on Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) v CIN Properties Ltd. The case was appealed twice to the House of Lords but has not been widely commented upon probably because, as decided, it does not concern unjustified enrichment but rather affirms the well-known rule that an enrichment claim is excluded by the express terms of a contract. The case is significant because when the appeal was before the Court of Session for the second time (1996) Lord Rodger of Earlsferry gave a dissenting opinion. He remained in a minority of one in favour of allowing a claim of unjustified enrichment; the majority, at all stages in the appeal, was not.
Keywords: Alan Rodger, unjustified enrichment, Scots law, dissenting opinion, judgment
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
