Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Some recipients of property that came from a breach of trust, as well as people who had assisted in a breach of trust, might incur liability. Equity recognised not merely a personal, but also a proprietary claim over assets taken in breach of trust, and perhaps also profits made in breach of the duty of loyalty. A proprietary claim meant that ...
The contract is based upon the bargain that a party forgoes its ability to sue (if it has not sued already), or to continue with the claim (if the plaintiff has sued), in return for the certainty written into the settlement. The courts will enforce the settlement. If it is breached, the party in default could be sued for breach of that contract.
Whether a breach of trust should be required at all has been queried by a commentator, since no breach is required for the analogous tort of interference with contractual relations and if the fiduciary reasonably relies on the probity and competence of the dishonest assistant, the claimant would be left with no remedy. [16]
The contrary view is that knowing receipt is, or ought to be, part of a broader doctrine of ignorance triggering a claim for unjust enrichment. On this view, anyone who receives property that was given away in breach of trust has a strict duty to repay the value, unless they have committed a wrong, or have changed their position after the receipt.
For example, in English law, restitution for breach of fiduciary duty is widely available but restitution for breach of contract is fairly exceptional. The wrong could be of any one of the following types: A statutory tort; A common law tort; An equitable wrong [24] A breach of contract; Criminal offences; Note that 1–5 are all causative ...
Although federal courts often hear tort cases arising out of common law or state statutes, there are relatively few tort claims that arise exclusively as a result of federal law. The most common federal tort claim is the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 remedy for violation of one's civil rights under color of federal or state law, which can be used to sue ...
Cobell v. Salazar (previously Cobell v.Kempthorne and Cobell v.Norton and Cobell v.Babbitt) is a class-action lawsuit brought by Elouise Cobell and other Native American representatives in 1996 against two departments of the United States government: the Department of Interior and the Department of the Treasury for mismanagement of Indian trust funds.
This was not in the position as if a breach had not occurred. Mummery LJ and Hobhouse LJ, held that Target Holdings applies to all breaches of trust, whatever the nature of the duty breached or the manner of its breach, so limiting claims for compensation or restitution when the loss or gain is caused by the breach.