If you fly into Roanoke Regional Airport, we are doing a deal with Enterprise by which you can rent a car for the journey from the Airport to the drop-off point in the main Washington & Lee car-park for $26; and you can do the return leg also for $26. If you would like to take advantage of this offer, please contact us to make the necessary arrangements.
As for driving from the airport to Washington and Lee, we have already provided some general information on getting to Lexington; here are some more specific directions:
From the Roanoke Regional Airport, turn LEFT (West) onto Thirlane Rd, Immediately turn LEFT(South) on Aviation Dr., NW
Take RIGHT ramp onto SR-101 (Hershberger Rd.,NW) to I-581 (North)
Take a RIGHT (North) onto I-851 toward Bristol/Lexington
Take the RIGHT ramp to (North) I-81 toward Staunton/Lexington (this is all set out on the maps available here and here)
Continue NORTH on I-81 (around 55 Miles)
Take RIGHT exit #188-B off of I-81 to Lexington
Now will be on US-60 towards Lexington
Continue to follow US-60 STRAIGHT into Lexington
First STOP light coming up next to McDonalds. Travel STRAIGHT through, but do get into LEFT lane.
A Lexington City limits sign should appear on right shortly after going through that stop light.
Continue through ALL Stop lights … passing Kentucky Fried Chicken, Hampton Inn, Carilion Stonewall Jackson Hospital, Wachovia and SunTrust Banks etc …
At this point you are on NELSON ST. or also signed as Route 60 West
After continuing through all Stop lights, you should immediately pass UNDER a pedestrian walkway connecting the Lenfest Center for the Arts (on the left) to the main part of campus (on the right) (here is a map of the campus (pdf); the Lenfest Center is number 35, and the building marked P across the road is the main parking garage).
Turn RIGHT onto East Denny Circle, next to a large parking garage on your right - this is the garage for dropping off your car; the Enterprise drop off points are on the top level.
It is a short walk from the parking garage to the Law School (number 36 on the map), but you might wish to drive there first to drop some things off, and if you do, after you have turned right onto East Denny Circle, proceed directly along the road, leaving the parking garage on your right.The road will bend sharply to the right, and a few hundred yards later, it will bend to your left, after which you will see the Law School off to your left, and the Law School parking lots to your left and right. These parking lots are behind the Law School. Please follow the footpaths and steps at either side of the building around to the main entrance at the front.
Posted by: Eoin in Updates
Preparations proceed apace for what we hope will be an exciting day of scholarship and discussion at the Restitution Roundtable in Lexington on 14 December next, and we are delighted by two recent developments.
First, Jason Neyers has confirmed that he will indeed be able to act as commentator on the first session.
Second, Collen Murphy’s abstract has now been added to her bio.
Posted by: Eoin in Updates
We are delighted to announce that two new papers have been offered:
Colleen P Murphy (Roger Williams School of Law) “The Confused Meanings of ‘Equitable’ and ‘Specific’ Restitution” (short bio and full abstract here)
Tony Duggan (University of Toronto) “A Spot Of Strother: The Latest (Unreliable) Word on Disgorgement Remedies in Canada” (short bio and full abstract here)
Their bios and abstracts have been added as indicated above, and the programme for the day has been updated accordingly.
We are delighted at the reponse so far, but our call for papers is now closed. If you are interested in attending, please register here.
Posted by: Eoin in Roundtable
On 14 December 2007, the Frances Lewis Law Center, of the School of Law, University of Washington and Lee, Lexington, Virginia, in association with the University of Washington and Lee Law Review, will host
A Roundtable on Restitution and Unjust Enrichment in North America.
The main point underpinning the Roundtable is to get North American (ie, Canadian and US) Restitution scholars, practitioners, judges and others with an interest in the subject, together in one place, talking about current legal issues in the Law of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment. There seem to be too few opportunities to do so, except on the margins of other more generally focussed events. The hope is that this informal Roundtable will provide just such a context. Given that the American Law Institute’s current project on a Restatement (Third) on Restitution and Unjust Enrichment is at a crucial stage, and that the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent case law is proving controversial, this would seem an opportune time.
Information about the current papers, registration and travel and accommodation, is below. Our call for papers is now closed. Thanks to the generosity of the Frances Lewis Law Center, there is no charge for attending the Roundtable.
 Andrew Kull, of Boston University School of Law, is the leading expert in the US the area of Restitution. Since 1997 he has been the reporter for the Third Restatement of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment (The American Law Institute) and, since 1994, has been the US Regional Editor of the Restitution Law Review. He is also a well-known Constitutional historian. His book, The Color-Blind Constitution (Harvard UP, 1992) won the Silver Gavel Award.
Andrew Kull will chair the Roundtable.
 Chaim Saiman, of the Villaova University School of Law, works in the areas of comparative private law and Jewish law. His articles include “Restating Restitution, A Case of Contemporary Common law Conceptualism” 52 Villanova Law Review 487 (2007) (SSRN), “Restitution in America: Why the U.S. Refuses to Join the Global Restitution Party” (forthcoming Oxford Journal of Legal Studies) (SSRN) and “Jesus’ Legal Theory—A Rabbinic Reading” (forthcoming Journal of Law and Religion) (SSRN). Currently, he is working several projects comparing US, Commonwealth and Civilian private law discourse as well as on a further exploration of Jewish and Christian conceptions of law. Prior to teaching at Villanova, Chaim served as an Olin Fellow at Harvard Law School, a Golieb Fellow in legal history at NYU Law School, and as a law clerk to Judge Michael McConnell on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. His Roundtable presentation is entitled:
Where is the American Law of Restitution Hiding … And Why?
Throughout the common law world, the law of restitution has become the locus of considerable creativity and excitement, to the extent that in many quarters, restitution is considered the cutting edge of both academic theory and commercial law practice. The House of Lords has issued a number of landmark decisions on restitution, and a large number of practitioners and academics hold themselves out as experts in this exciting and emerging field. The situation in the US by contrast, could not be more different, where the American law of restitution is all but invisible. In this paper I argue, that while both jurisdictions litigate roughly the same types of facts, American law is structured in a way that pushes free standing unjust enrichment claims to the recesses of the legal consciousness.
Specifically, the article focuses on six factors that contribute to this trend: Read the rest of this entry »
 Eoin O’Dell is a Visiting Professor at the University of Washington and Lee School of Law, where he is Scholar in Residence at the Frances Lewis Law Center. He is a Fellow and Senior Lecturer in Law, and Director of Research, in the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin. His research and writing relates mainly to the Law of Restitution, and to Freedom of Expression. He blogs at cearta.ie. His Roundtable presentation is entitled:
Echoes and Mysticism: The Canadian Law of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment From the Outside, Looking In
For more than half a century, ever since the seminal cases of Delgman v Guranty Trust of Canada [1954] SCR 725; 1954 CanLII 2 (21 June 1954) and Pettkus v Becker [1980] 2 SCR 834, 1980 CanLII 22 (18 December 1980), the Supreme Court of Canada has grappled with a principle against unjust enrichment that is predicated upon an enrichment, a corresponding deprivation, and an absence of juristic reason for the enrichment. Analysis on the basis of a principle against unjust enrichment has significant benefits when compared with more distributed, atomistic approaches - for this reason, the Delgman/Pettkus development is to be welcomed.
For all the advances made by this rubric, however, there are at least two fundamental problems with it which are only just beginning to be resolved. Read the rest of this entry »
 Jason Neyers, of the Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario, teaches and researches in the areas of torts, restitution, corporate and contract law. He has published numerous papers and comments in leading law journals, and of his four books, he is the co-editor of JW Neyers, M McInnes and SGA Pitel Understanding Unjust Enrichment (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004), and the co-author of L Smith, R Chambers, M McInnes, JW Neyers and SGA Pitel The Law of Restitution in Canada: Cases, Notes and Materials (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publishing, 2004). He is the moderator of the Obligations Discussion Group (ODG), which is an international mailing list devoted to all aspects of the law of obligations. His Roundtable presentation is entitled:
Commentary on the US and Canada
This paper will comment on the perspectives on US and Canadian law taken respectively by Saiman and O’Dell.
 John McCamus is the author, co-author or editor of several books, including the leading Canadian text on Restitution, The Law of Restitution (2nd ed, Canada Law Book Co, 2004) (the first edition of which won the David W Mundell Medal for Excellence in Legal Literature and the Walter Owen Book Prize 1993), and he has written many articles covering various aspects of the law of restitution, contracts, freedom of information, and the protection of privacy. He is a member of the Advisory Committee for the Restatement. His Roundtable presentation is entitled:
Wrongful Conduct and Change of Position
In the law providing for the restitutionary recovery of mistaken payments, a defence of change of position is well established. Generally, one who has paid money under a mistake is entitled to restitionary relief. If, however, the recipient has detrimentally relied on the receipt by, for example, making an unusual expenditure, the recipient can defend the claim to the extent of such reliance. As between the mistaken payer and the recipient who has detrimentally relied, the interests of the latter prevail. More controversial, however, is the question of the relevance of the fault of either or both of the parties to the availability of the defence. Section 142 of the (First) Restatement of Restituiton (1937) states that fault of the recipient precludes the defence, unless the recipient is no more at fault than the payer. This “balancing test” has been criticized in other common law jurisdictions. This paper suggests that, in broad outline, the approach taken by section 142 is correct, but that the section is vulnerable to criticism and can be improved in the current Restatement process light of the analysis provided by the author.
 Doug Rendleman is the Robert E. R. Huntley Professor of Law in the University of Washington and Lee School of Law. His research and teaching focus on Civil Procedure, Injunctions, and Remedies. He is the author, among innumerable books and articles, of Cases & Materials on Remedies (7th ed, West Publishing, 2006). He is a member of the Advisory Committee for the Restatement. His Roundtable presentation is entitled:
The Restatement Process and Its Critics
The American Law Institute’s Restatements of the Law are ambitious attempts to articulate the common law in disparate areas like torts, contracts, and restitution. Critics of the ALI process have focused on both its legitimacy and its accuracy in undertaking to “restate” common law. This contribution will focus on two controversial sections of the ongoing Restitution Restatement to show aspects of the ALI’s internal process. The slayer’s rule section has been controversial on a technical level of remedy; this controversy has been between the restitution reporter and advisors, on the one hand, and, on the other, the Property Restatement reporters and its advisors. Restitution for the disappointed cohabitant, Marvin v Marvin 18 Cal 3d 660 (1976), has been controversial in a more intimate arena and on a more abstract level; one of the restitution projectís advisors insists that a court should not allow such restitution at all. I expect to examine these controversies to test the restatement process and to respond to critics of that process.
 Caprice L Roberts is a Visiting Professor at the University of Washington and Lee School of Law, and a Professor of Law at the University of West Virginia Collge of Law. Her teaching and scholarship focus on Remedies, Federal Courts, and Postmodern Jurisprudence. Her Roundtable presentation is entitled:
A Commonwealth of Perspective on Restitutionary Disgorgement for Opportunistic Breach of Contract
This article will explore comparative law on the restitutionary disgorgement remedy for breach of contract. It will focus on pending changes to American contract law that will come from the revised Restatement. The author’s other scholarship casts the Restatement’s recognition of a restitutionary disgorgement remedy for opportunistic breach of contract as somewhat revolutionary in the context of the American approach to contract law. A well-developed intellectual canon of scholarship and precedent on restitutionary disgorgement exists in foreign common-law jurisdictions. For comparison, this article will explore parallel movements in Commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand. This article seeks to explore these rich resources to bring them to bear on the American debate on this disgorgement remedy.
Because context matters, this article seeks to apply lessons learned from other Commonwealth jurisdictions. In order to appreciate fully the potential benefits and ramifications of restitutionary disgorgement for breach of contract, we need to view the issues through as many lenses as possible. We all benefit from using our eyesight, but we need to use both the microscope and the telescope. It may be that what is at first blush revolutionary within the context of American jurisprudence has meaningful support from the perspective of comparative law. Such a transnational comparison may show that a new remedy from the roots of unjust enrichment will not unmoor contract law.
|
Entries (RSS)