The Student Room Group

Remedies in Contract, Tort and Restitution

Hello,

I have recently been researching the case of Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] as I was told by my teacher that this was important in showing that there is a distinction between the remedies in contract and tort law. However, having read the case and the judgements I am finding it difficult to see this distinction. In all honesty I find the case very complicated and difficult to follow and the only thing I understand from it is that the recovery of money had and received at common law in restitution is 'unjust enrichment'. Can anybody help me in regards to seeing how the distinction between contract and tort has been made in this case?

Thank you :smile:

Quick Reply

Latest