ABSTRACT
There is a danger that one tend to overuse the favourite concepts, particularly once they have left the familiar territory of contract and tort. For restitution lawyers the temptation is artificially to enlarge the category of obligations which are based on the defendant's unjust enrichment at the expense of the plaintiff by an overinclusive concept of enrichment. One consequence of a broad approach to enrichment may be to marginalize the concept of 'reliance'. It is perhaps no accident that neither of the English books on Restitution refers to 'reliance' in the index. In other words the danger is that either reliance is made a subcategory of benefit or enrichment, or that benefit or enrichment is made a sub-category of reliance. Both may marginalize obligations based on 'consent'. The issue is not therefore whether relief should or should not be granted but what is the appropriate basis for that relief.
