111:
law will imply a contract to repay or to give a lien. It is perfectly true that the inference of an understanding between the parties—which you may translate into other language by calling it an implied contract—is an inference which will unhesitatingly be drawn in cases where the circumstances plainly lead to the conclusion that the owner of the saved property knew that the other party was laying out his money in the expectation of being repaid. In other words, you must have circumstances from which the proper inference is that there was a request to perform the service. It comes to the same thing, but I abstain the using the word “request” more than is necessary, for fear of plunging myself into all the archaic embarrassments connected with the cases about requests. But wherever you find that the owner of the property saved knew of the service being performed, you will have to ask yourself (and the question will become one of fact) whether under all the circumstances there was either what the law calls an implied contract for repayment or a contract which would give rise to a lien?
107:
average, and contribution, the maritime law differs from the common law. That has been so from the time of the Roman law downwards. The maritime law, for the purposes of public policy and for the advantage of trade, imposes in these cases a liability upon the thing saved, a liability which is a special consequence arising out of the character of mercantile enterprises, the nature of sea perils, and the fact that the thing saved was saved under great stress and exceptional circumstances. No similar doctrine applies to things lost upon land, nor to anything except ships or goods in peril at sea.
110:
With regard to ordinary goods upon which labour or money is expended with a view of saving them or benefiting the owner, there can, as it seems to me, according to the common law be only one principle upon which a claim for repayment can be based, and that is where you can find facts from which the
85:
Falcke owned the first mortgage on the life insurance policy of the
Duchess de Beaufremont. There were many mortgages on it. Emmanuel paid a large premium on the policy to preserve its value because he mistakenly thought he was the ultimate owner of the equity, or he bought out the interests in the
102:
The general principle is, beyond all question, that work and labour done or money expended by one man to preserve or benefit the property of another do not according to
English law create any lien upon the property saved or benefited, nor, even if standing alone, create any obligation to repay the
106:
There is an exception to this proposition in the maritime law. I mention it because the word “salvage” has been used from time to time throughout the argument, and some analogy is sought to be established between salvage and the right claimed by the
Respondents. With regard to salvage, general
97:
held that
Emmanuel could get no lien on the basis of his mistake, or his saving the policy. Falcke did not request it, know about it, or acquiesce in the payment. So the entire value of the policy belonged to Falcke.
86:
policy that were in priority to his. He claimed he should have a lien on the policy for the premium he just paid, because otherwise the whole life insurance policy would have lapsed.
103:
expenditure. Liabilities are not to be forced upon people behind their backs any more than you can confer a benefit upon a man against his will.
161:
77:. It sets out some fundamental principles of construction of obligations, as viewed to exist by the late 19th-century English judiciary.
29:
166:
176:
127:
70:
171:
94:
156:
74:
8:
150:
52:
115:
56:
148:
66:Falcke v Scottish Imperial Insurance Co
21:Falcke v Scottish Imperial Insurance Co
149:
13:
162:English unjust enrichment case law
14:
188:
1:
138:
128:English unjust enrichment law
71:English unjust enrichment law
7:
121:
89:
10:
193:
73:case, which also concerns
167:English contract case law
48:
43:
35:
25:
20:
133:
80:
177:Court of Chancery cases
69:(1886) 34 Ch 234 is an
113:
100:
75:English contract law
172:1866 in British law
62:
61:
184:
157:1886 in case law
44:Court membership
39:(1886) 34 Ch 234
18:
17:
192:
191:
187:
186:
185:
183:
182:
181:
147:
146:
141:
136:
124:
92:
83:
30:Court of Appeal
12:
11:
5:
190:
180:
179:
174:
169:
164:
159:
145:
144:
140:
137:
135:
132:
131:
130:
123:
120:
91:
88:
82:
79:
60:
59:
50:
49:Judges sitting
46:
45:
41:
40:
37:
33:
32:
27:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
189:
178:
175:
173:
170:
168:
165:
163:
160:
158:
155:
154:
152:
143:
142:
129:
126:
125:
119:
117:
112:
108:
104:
99:
96:
87:
78:
76:
72:
68:
67:
58:
54:
51:
47:
42:
38:
34:
31:
28:
24:
19:
16:
114:
109:
105:
101:
93:
84:
65:
64:
63:
15:
118:concurred.
151:Categories
139:References
122:See also
95:Bowen LJ
90:Judgment
53:Bowen LJ
36:Citation
116:Fry LJ
57:Fry LJ
134:Notes
81:Facts
26:Court
153::
55:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.