theories
| Front | Unjust Enrichment and Its Relationship to Contract LawUnjust enrichment can be relevant when no explicit promises are made. |
| Back | Unjust enrichment ensures that benefits received are compensated for, even in the absence of a formal contract. In British Steel Corp v Cleveland Bridge [1984], restitution was awarded even though no contract existed. This is distinct from contract law but often overlaps in situations like quasi-contracts. |
| Front | Challenges in Defining a ContractDefining a contract is challenging due to complexity in contract formation and enforcement. |
| Back | The complexity of contract law means that defining a contract simply as “whatever the law deems it to be” can be too vague. As seen in Proprietary Articles Trade Association v A-G for Canada [1931], definitions must account for contract formation, performance, and termination. |
| Front | The Morality of Promise-Keeping in Contract LawPromise-keeping is seen as a moral foundation for enforcing contracts. |
| Back | Charles Fried argues that enforcing promises in contracts supports the dignity and autonomy of individuals, fostering personal freedom. This view aligns with political liberalism, emphasizing autonomy in contractual agreements. |