{"title":"梦想案例?","authors":"Frederick Wilmot-Smith","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2911502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Dream Property v Atlas Housing [2015] 2 A.M.R. 601; [2015] 2 M.L.J. 441, the Federal Court of Malaysia recognised unjust enrichment as an independent source of legal obligation. The precise way they went about this revolutionised the general understanding of the law in Malaysia. And they also discussed restitutionary awards for wrongs. The case may prove to be a poisoned chalice. As I explain in this note, the Federal Court’s reasoning and its application of the legal concepts to the facts leave a lot to be desired.","PeriodicalId":404809,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Rights & Remedies (Private Law - Contracts) (Topic)","volume":"299 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Dream Case?\",\"authors\":\"Frederick Wilmot-Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2911502\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Dream Property v Atlas Housing [2015] 2 A.M.R. 601; [2015] 2 M.L.J. 441, the Federal Court of Malaysia recognised unjust enrichment as an independent source of legal obligation. The precise way they went about this revolutionised the general understanding of the law in Malaysia. And they also discussed restitutionary awards for wrongs. The case may prove to be a poisoned chalice. As I explain in this note, the Federal Court’s reasoning and its application of the legal concepts to the facts leave a lot to be desired.\",\"PeriodicalId\":404809,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Rights & Remedies (Private Law - Contracts) (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"299 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Rights & Remedies (Private Law - Contracts) (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2911502\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Rights & Remedies (Private Law - Contracts) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2911502","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
In Dream Property v . Atlas Housing [2015] 2 A.M.R. 601;[2015] 2 M.L.J. 441，马来西亚联邦法院承认不当得利是法律义务的独立来源。他们的做法彻底改变了人们对马来西亚法律的普遍理解。他们还讨论了对错误的赔偿。这个案子可能会被证明是一个有毒的圣杯。正如我在本说明中所解释的那样，联邦法院的推理及其对事实的法律概念的应用还有很多需要改进的地方。
In Dream Property v Atlas Housing [2015] 2 A.M.R. 601; [2015] 2 M.L.J. 441, the Federal Court of Malaysia recognised unjust enrichment as an independent source of legal obligation. The precise way they went about this revolutionised the general understanding of the law in Malaysia. And they also discussed restitutionary awards for wrongs. The case may prove to be a poisoned chalice. As I explain in this note, the Federal Court’s reasoning and its application of the legal concepts to the facts leave a lot to be desired.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
