Books in the Hart Studies in Private Law series

This book challenges the orthodox understanding of the expectation principle, as famously laid down by Parke B in Robinson v Harman, and proposes a new account of the money awards provided in response to breach of contract.

Featuring the work of leading scholars from the UK, Germany, South Africa, Canada, Hong Kong and Australia, the essays undertake critical and comparative analysis of the Restatement, and offer fresh insights into the rules that it articulates.

Every day, large numbers of altruistic individuals, in the absence of any legal duty, provide substantial and essential services for elderly and disabled people. In doing so, many suffer financial and other disadvantages. This book considers the scope for a "private law" approach to rewarding, supporting or compensating carers.

Enrichment is key to understanding the law of unjust enrichment and restitution.This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the concept of enrichment and its implications for restitutionary awards.

Convention teaches that the absence of liability - in particular contractual invalidity - is itself a reason for the restitution of transfers in the South African law of unjustified enrichment. Scott argues that while the absence of a relationship of indebtedness is a necessary condition for restitution, it is not a sufficient condition.

This book defends the view that an award of an account of profits (or 'disgorgement damages') for breach of contract will sometimes be justifiable, and fits within the orthodox principles and cases in contract law, and examines the circumstances in which such an award should be made.

The book is best understood as advancing a suggestion: that the law of nuisance is better understood by rejecting the contemporary understanding of it and beginning again with an approach the focuses on the prioritising of property rights.

Addressing a series of doctrinal puzzles within the law of assault, defamation and breach of privacy, the book considers in what respects the Roman delict of iniuria overlaps with its modern counterparts in England, Scotland and South Africa.

While some defences to liability recognised in the law of torts have been explored in detail, the theoretical foundations of defences generally have received scant attention. This book attempts to fill this gap.

Based on author's thesis (doctoral - Deakin University, Australia, 2015) issued under title: Negligence and the wrongdoing plaintiff: a corrective justice analysis.

This book brings together a wide range of contributors from across the common law world to identify and debate the principal moral and systemic challenges that are likely to face private law in the remaining part of the twenty-first century. The various contributions identify serious problems relating to complexity and overload, threats to research and education, the law''s unintelligibility, the unsatisfactory nature of the law reform process and a general lack of public engagement. They consider the respective future roles of statutes, codes, and judge-made law (in the form of both common law and equitable rules). They consider how best to organise the private law system internally, and how to co-ordinate it externally with other public and economic systems (human rights, regulation, insurance markets and social security frameworks). They address the challenges for private law presented by new forms technology, and by modern demands for the protection of new and intangible forms of moral interest, such as interests in privacy, ''vindication'' and ''personal choice''. They also engage with the critical contemporary debates about access to, and the privatisation of, civil justice. The work will be an important source of inspiration and reference to private lawyers, as well as legislators, policy-makers and students.

In this structural comparison between English and German law, Birke Hacker explores the rules and principles governing impaired consent transfers of movable property and their reversal in two- and three-party situations.

In Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, nine justices of the Supreme Court of England and Wales decided in favour of a restitutionary award in response to an unjust enrichment, despite the illegal transaction on which that enrichment was based. Whilst the result was reached unanimously, the reasoning could be said to have divided the Court. Lord Toulson, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge and Lord Neuberger favoured a discretionary approach, but their mode of reasoning was described as 'revolutionary' by Lord Sumption (at [261]), who outlined in contrast a more rule-based means of dealing with the issue; a method with which Lord Mance and Lord Clarke broadly agreed. The decision is detailed and complex, and its implications for several areas of the law are considerable. Significantly, the reliance principle from Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 has been discarded, as has the rule in Parkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd [1925] KB 1. Patel v Mirza, therefore, can fairly be described as one of the most important judgments in general private law for a generation, and it can be expected to have ramifications for the application of the illegality doctrine across a wide range of disciplinary areas. Unless there is legislative intervention, which does not seem likely at the present time, Patel v Mirza is set to be of enduring significance.This collection will provide a crucial set of theoretical and practical perspectives on the illegality defence in English private law. All of the authors are well established in their respective fields. The timing of the book means that it will be unusually well placed as the 'go to' work on this subject, for legal practitioners and for scholars.

In Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, nine justices of the Supreme Court of England and Wales decided in favour of a restitutionary award in response to an unjust enrichment, despite the illegal transaction on which that enrichment was based. Whilst the result was reached unanimously, the reasoning could be said to have divided the Court. Lord Toulson, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge and Lord Neuberger favoured a discretionary approach, but their mode of reasoning was described as 'revolutionary' by Lord Sumption (at [261]), who outlined in contrast a more rule-based means of dealing with the issue; a method with which Lord Mance and Lord Clarke broadly agreed. The decision is detailed and complex, and its implications for several areas of the law are considerable. Significantly, the reliance principle from Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 has been discarded, as has the rule in Parkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd [1925] KB 1. Patel v Mirza, therefore, can fairly be described as one of the most important judgments in general private law for a generation, and it can be expected to have ramifications for the application of the illegality doctrine across a wide range of disciplinary areas. Unless there is legislative intervention, which does not seem likely at the present time, Patel v Mirza is set to be of enduring significance.This collection will provide a crucial set of theoretical and practical perspectives on the illegality defence in English private law. All of the authors are well established in their respective fields. The timing of the book means that it will be unusually well placed as the 'go to' work on this subject, for legal practitioners and for scholars.

This book has two goals: to identify how English tort law has changed as a result of Europeanisation, and to examine how such developments have impacted on traditional common law reasoning.

Although much equitable doctrine is settled, there remain some intractable problems that bedevil lawyers across jurisdictions. Here, leading scholars and practitioners from England, Australia and New Zealand employ new historical, comparative and theoretical perspectives to cast light on these fault lines in equitable doctrine and methodology.

Based on author's thesis (doctoral - University of Oxford, 2014).

This completely revised and expanded second edition has chapters on Public Authority Liability, Privacy and Autonomy Rights, Land Torts and Death.