My reluctance is founded upon two propositions: 1. Persons who choose, as the parties to this action did, to live together without any expressed commitment to each other should be able to do so without incurring any legal obligations to each other. The concept of unjust enrichment has come so far from Pettkus v. Becker, 1980 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834, as to be well nigh unrecognizable. There is nothing "unjust" on the facts of this case in the respondent being kept to her original bargain which was that neither had any obligation to the other. 2. There is a maxim of the common law "de minimis non curat lex". If there was an "enrichment" here, it was and is de minimis and not worthy of reparation at law or equity. "The Honourable Madam Justice Southin"
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.