Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Table of cases
- Table of statutes and treaties
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Preventing unjust enrichment
- 3 Mistakes
- 4 Other-regarding conferrals of benefits
- 5 Self-interested conferrals of benefits
- 6 Restitution in contexts of informal intimacy
- 7 Wrongful enrichments
- 8 Restitution in a contractual context
- 9 Restitution in bankruptcy
- 10 Reasons for restitution
- Bibliography
- Index
7 - Wrongful enrichments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Table of cases
- Table of statutes and treaties
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Preventing unjust enrichment
- 3 Mistakes
- 4 Other-regarding conferrals of benefits
- 5 Self-interested conferrals of benefits
- 6 Restitution in contexts of informal intimacy
- 7 Wrongful enrichments
- 8 Restitution in a contractual context
- 9 Restitution in bankruptcy
- 10 Reasons for restitution
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
The celebrated case of Olwell v. Nye & Nissen has become one of the legends of the law of restitution. Olwell sold his interest in an egg-packing corporation to Nye & Nissen. By the terms of the sale, he was to retain full ownership in an egg-washing machine formerly used by that corporation. Olwell stored the machine in a space adjacent to the premises occupied by Nye & Nissen. Nye & Nissen, without Olwell's knowledge or consent, took the egg-washer out of storage and used it for the next three years in the regular course of its business. Olwell was not materially damaged, since the egg-washing machine was not harmed by Nye & Nissen's operation during that period, and Olwell never claimed title to it. Hence, Olwell sued Nye & Nissen in quasi-contract, waiving his conversion suit. He sought to recover the profits that inured to Nye & Nissen as a result of its wrongful use of the machine. The Supreme Court of Washington held that, though no material harm had been done, Nye & Nissen was nonetheless liable for the benefit it had captured. More precisely, given the scarcity of labor immediately after the outbreak of World War II, the Court ordered Nye & Nissen to pay Olwell its ill-gotten gain measured by the amount saved in labor costs by using his machine.
Olwell is an exciting case because it vividly demonstrates the potential bite of restitutionary claims in cases of wrongful enrichments.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Law and Ethics of Restitution , pp. 210 - 259Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2004