ABSTRACT
But this is under the different rubric of failure of assumptions (even though this may be closely related to mistake proper).3 Nevertheless, the law of restitution is (understandably) slower to compensate for disappointed hopes than for presently blighted intentions, if only because a person rendering a benefit in the expectation of a future return is more likely to be taking a risk, either as to whether he will be paid at all,4 or as to the solvency of the payee. Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd5 nicely illustrates the point. Investors paid Goldcorp for gold on the basis that Goldcorp would buy and hold the necessary bullion on their behalf. Goldcorp, however, did no such thing, and instead went into receivership. The investors claimed restitution on the basis that their money had been paid by mistake, a claim which, if good, would have arguably given them a constructive trust over any of their moneys in Goldcorp’s hands.6 But the Privy Council refused this relief, holding that their claim was for failure of expectations, which gave no such remedy.
