| |
| | danneman.doc |
 | | In English law, however, the judgment is mostly remembered for Bramwell, B denying the claim on the ground that \'93 the mistake must be as to a fact which, if true, would make the person paying liable to pay the money\'94, which relegated the legal ground to a sub-ca tegory within mistake, i.e. |
 | | The substantive law of duress \endash the problem, often difficult, of determining which coercive influences should be treated as wrongful \endash is the same in all of these settings.\'94 \par }\pard \s29\qj \li0\ri0\sa60\sl-300\slmult0\widctlpar\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin0\itap0 {The same is stated in \'a7 15 comment (a) about undue influence. |
 | | This is entirely unnecessary, as German law has developed a contractual doctrine of frustration, which would allow G erman law to handle the issue of failure to achieve an intended result through contract law, and to allow restitution through the general clause if the rules on frustration will set the contract aside. |
| www.utexas.edu /law/conferences/restitution/danneman.doc (8985 words) |
|