Also known as: restitutionary remedies · restitution · restitutionary relief
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A remedy that restores to a claimant the value of a benefit conferred on another party. It prevents unjust enrichment by returning the recipient to the position occupied before the benefit was received. Measurement of the award may focus on the reasonable value of what was received or the increase in the recipient's property or interests.
Ralph Richardson negligently damaged Regina Robinson's equipment during a shared project. Regina had already supplied specialized parts worth several thousand dollars that Ralph used before the damage occurred. The court awards Regina the reasonable value of those parts as restitution to restore the benefit Ralph received. This measure returns Regina to her pre-transaction position without regard to her out-of-pocket replacement cost.
Raymond Ramos and Rhea Reynolds contracted for the sale of land both believed contained valuable timber. After discovery that the timber had already been harvested, the contract is voidable for mutual mistake. Raymond returns the down payment he received and Rhea recovers the value of her survey work performed on the property. The restitution award accounts for the material effect on the exchange and restores the parties to their pre-contract positions.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ridgeway Partners held an easement across Ronald Reed's parcel for equipment staging. Ridgeway instead stored hazardous materials there for months, conferring a cost-saving benefit on itself. The court orders Ridgeway to pay restitution measured by the reasonable value of the unauthorized use. This remedy restores Ronald to the position he would have occupied absent the violation while accounting for the nature of the servitude.
Rosalind Reed promised to exercise a power of appointment in favor of Reliance Insurance in exchange for a cash payment. The contract is unenforceable because the power was not presently exercisable. Reliance recovers the cash it paid as restitution even though it cannot obtain specific performance or damages. The award prevents unjust enrichment from the value Reliance conferred before learning the promise could not be enforced.
A client of Royal Crest Hotels discovered its lawyer had misappropriated funds and entered a private agreement for repayment. The agreement provided for restitution of the misappropriated amounts to restore the value conferred. The client's desire to keep the matter quiet does not affect the restitution paid under the private agreement. Any such award stands separate from other processes and prevents unjust enrichment.
Rhapsody Entertainment partially performed a services contract before the other party breached. The court awards Rhapsody the reasonable value of the services to the recipient rather than Rhapsody's own costs. This measure protects the restitution interest by returning the value conferred. The award may alternatively be based on any increase in the recipient's property or interests as justice requires.
The award may be measured by the reasonable value to the recipient of what was received or by the extent to which the recipient's property or interests have increased. The choice turns on which measure justice requires in the particular case. This approach restores the claimant without requiring proof of the claimant's own costs.
Yes. The remedy is available only to the extent a benefit was conferred by part performance or reliance. The claimant must show the recipient received something of value that equity requires be returned.
Yes. A court may combine restitution with declaratory relief, compensatory damages, or injunctive relief when multiple remedies are appropriate. The choice among remedies considers the nature of the underlying obligation and the conduct of the parties.
The promisee cannot obtain damages or specific performance but remains entitled to restitution of the value given in exchange for the promise. This prevents the recipient from retaining the benefit without performing an obligation the law will not enforce.
…Securities Act of 1933, the Court found the words entirely sufficient to fashion a remedy to rescind a fraudulent sale, secure restitution and even to enforce the right to restitution against a third party holding assets of the vendor. Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp. , 311 U. S. 282 (1940). This significant language was…