Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Better than Fuller

Associated organisational unit

Electronic data

  • Better_than_Fuller

    Rights statement: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Campbell, D. (2015), Better than Fuller: A Two Interests Model of Remedies for Breach of Contract. The Modern Law Review, 78: 296–323. doi: 10.1111/1468-2230.12116 which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2230.12116/abstract This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.

    Accepted author manuscript, 200 KB, PDF-document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Better than Fuller: a two interests model of remedies for breach of contract

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>30/03/2015
<mark>Journal</mark>Modern Law Review
Issue number2
Volume78
Number of pages28
Pages (from-to)296-323
Publication statusPublished
Early online date2/03/15
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

The attempt to combine the contractual interests properly so-called with the restitution interest in the Fuller and Purdue three interests model of remedies for breach of contract is ineradicably incoherent. Stimulated by reflection on contemporary restitution doctrine’s understanding of the quasi-contractual remedies of recovery and quantum meruit, this paper argues that the complete elimination from the law of contract of the restitution interest, which incorporates those remedies into the three interests model, would improve both the coherence of the model of contractual interests and the substantive law of remedies for breach.

Bibliographic note

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Campbell, D. (2015), Better than Fuller: A Two Interests Model of Remedies for Breach of Contract. The Modern Law Review, 78: 296–323. doi: 10.1111/1468-2230.12116 which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2230.12116/abstract This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.