| 词条 | Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul |
| 释义 |
| name = Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul | court = High Court of Australia | image = Coat of Arms of Australia.svg | caption = | date decided = 4 March 1987 | full name = | citations = {{Cite AustLII|HCA|5|1987|litigants= |parallelcite=(1985) 162 CLR 221}} | judges = | prior actions = Paul v Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 114 | appealed from = NSW Court of Appeal | subsequent actions = | opinions = | Majority = Mason, Wilson, Deane & Dawson JJ | dissenting = Brennan J | transcripts = | keywords = Restitution, work, building, oral contract }} Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul,[1] is a leading Australian case concerning unjust enrichment, and an award for restitution based on quantum meruit. FactsPavey & Matthews renovated a cottage belonging to Mrs. Paul {{citation needed|date=October 2013}} Their contract was orally agreed, and at the end of the renovation Pavey & Mathews were paid a sum of $36,000—only a portion of what they claimed they were owed; Pavey & Matthews said the prevailing rate was $63,000, and were still owed $27,000. Because the contract was not in writing (as required by the Builders Licensing Act)[2][3] it was considered unenforceable. Even though the contract was unenforceable, the question that the case needed to answer, was whether a quantum meruit claim could be independent of a contract and thus avoid the Licensing Act. JudgmentThe High Court of Australia (Brennan J dissenting) held that the case was independent of the Act, and the extra $27,000 was awarded. The majority—Deane J, Mason J and Wilson J--rejected that the claim was based on an implied oral contract, falling foul of the Act {{Citation needed|date=October 2013}}. The basis was not Mrs Paul’s promise to pay, but rather the work done and its acceptance by Mrs Paul. The Licensing Act was designed to allow building owners to withdraw from their oral commitments, not to enable them to pay nothing for work that they requested and approved. Pavey & Mathews would have received less restitution only if Mrs Paul had withdrawn her promise before the work had begun, but the builders had gone ahead anyway. Also, the quantum meruit (the amount rewarded) could be no higher than the objective market rate for the work, even if Mrs Paul’s promise was for a higher price. Deane J said the following: {{Cquote|unjust enrichment in the law of this country… constitutes a unifying legal concept which explains why the law recognises, in a variety of distinct categories of case, an obligation on the part of a defendant to make a fair and just restitution for a benefit derived at the expense of a plaintiff and which assists in the determination, by the ordinary processes of legal reasoning, of the question whether the law should, in justice, recognise such an obligation in a new or developing category of case…[1]{{rp|p 256-7}}}}See also
References1. ^1 {{Cite AustLII|HCA|5|1987|litigants=Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul |parallelcite=(1985) 162 CLR 221 |courtname=High Court |date=4 March 1987}}. 2. ^{{cite Legislation AU |NSW|num_act|bla1971n16213|Builders Licensing Act 1971}}. 3. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.nswhmms.org.au/sites/default/files/factsheets/HMMSFactsheet%205%20Licensing.pdf |title=Licensing requirements in the HMMS industry |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130410054443/http://www.nswhmms.org.au/sites/default/files/factsheets/HMMSFactsheet%205%20Licensing.pdf |archive-date=10 April 2013 |publisher=The NSW Home Modifications and Maintenance Services State Council}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Pavey and Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul}} 4 : Unjust enrichment|High Court of Australia cases|1987 in case law|1987 in Australian law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。