Abstract

Professor Ernest Weinrib has argued that restitutionary damages must be understood, not as a deterrent to wrongful conduct, but as a requirement of commutative Justice. Professor Gordley agrees, but claims that a purposive understanding of commutative Justice can shed more light on restitutionary damages than the formal understanding of Professor Weinrib. A purposive understanding enables us to distinguish appropriation of a right from mere inteference, to distinguish true restitutionary damages from damages in lieu of a forced sale or hold-up; and to explain why, normally, it should not matter whether the defendant acted wilfully or innocently.

Recommended Citation

Gordley, James (2000) "The Purpose of Awarding Restitutionary Damages: A Reply to Professor Weinrib," Theoretical Inquiries in Law: Vol. 1 : No. 1, Article 2.
Available at: http://www.bepress.com/til/default/vol1/iss1/art2