– who when speaking of the forms of action memorably said, ‘[w]hen these ghosts of the past stand in the path of justice clanking their medieval chains the proper course for the judge is to pass through them undeterred’ century but were in the minority on this issue. It was left to Robert Goff and Gareth Jones to reignite interest in the subject with the publication of The Law of Restitution in 1966. III UNJUST ENRICHMENT IN ENGLAND: THE ACADEMIC AND THE PRACTITIONER The next milestone on the road to the recognition of unjust enrichment was the appearance of Peter Birks’s An Introduction to the Law of Restitution.
The emergence of unjust enrichment in the final decades of the twentieth century is a clear counter-example.
Little more than a generation has passed since Lord Diplock could state that ‘there is no general doctrine of unjust enrichment recognised in English law’. Despite the novelty of unjust enrichment, arguments based on historical sources have played a critical role.
It is sometimes tempting to assume that if there was ever a legal category without a history then unjust enrichment is it. The contrast with contract and tort in this respect is striking. In the battle for acceptance, history is thought by many to be a powerful weapon against the sceptics.
Ames thought that when combined with Roman law they did support such a principle.
Money had and received had been seen as giving rise to a type of implied contract for at least a century.
The Court of Conscience ruled that Moses had to pay and refused to receive the agreement in evidence.