Skip Navigation

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 2005 25(2):297-319; doi:10.1093/ojls/gqi015
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kull, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

James Barr Ames and the Early Modern History of Unjust Enrichment

Andrew Kull1

1 Professor of Law, Boston University; Reporter, Restatement Third, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment (American Law Institute).

The modern conception of unjust enrichment as a source of private obligation, and as the basis of today’s law of restitution, is usually traced to the American Law Institute’s Restatement of Restitution (1937). But the Restatement’s most significant innovation—its unified treatment of law and equity, presenting quasi-contract and constructive trust as alternative responses to the problem of unjust enrichment—merely put the ALI imprimatur on discoveries announced some fifty years earlier by James Barr Ames of the Harvard Law School. Ames’s propositions about unjust enrichment had found steadily increasing acceptance in the intervening decades, and by the time the Restatement was drafted they represented American academic orthodoxy. The law of restitution has been notoriously slow in developing, but its modern era is approximately half a century older than is generally supposed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.