-
Moses v
Macferlan (1760) 2 Bur 1005 is a
foundational case in the law of
restitution holding that in
certain cir****stances such as when
money is paid...
-
restitution would be
available is Lord Mansfield's
decision in
Moses v
Macferlan (1760),
which imported into the
common law
notions of
conscience from...
-
terminology of
unjust enrichment in most
common law jurisdictions.
Moses v
Macferlan (1760) 2 Bur 1005; 97 Eng. Rep. 676 (King's Bench, England)
Bingham v...
- 426,
principles of
representative accountability in
companies Moses v
Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005,
unjust enrichment, or quasi-contract
Pillans & Rose...
- core of the
modern law of
unjust enrichment. A
seminal case is
Moses v
Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005.
Perhaps more than any
other area of the
common law...
-
number and variety. Lord
Mansfield C.J., in a
familiar p****age in
Moses v
Macferlan,
sought to
rationalize the
action for
money had and received, and illustrated...
- restitution. The
cases discussed are,
Lampleigh v
Brathwait (1615)
Moses v
Macferlan (1760)
Taylor v
Plumer (1815)
Planche v
Colburn (1831)
Marsh v Keating...
- disciples,
organized as a
secret society,
comprised Ciprian (nicknamed "
Macferlan" by Urmuz),
Alexandru "Bălălău"
Bujoreanu and Costică "Pentagon" Grigorescu...
-
Mansfield said, is “very
beneficial and therefore, much encouraged” [Moses v
Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005, 1012]. Thus we have
repeatedly held that, when one...
- used in such cases." The
action was, as Lord
Mansfield said in
Moses v
Macferlan, "quasi ex contractu" and
founded on an
obligation imposed by law and...
