Peter v. Beblow dealt more with the remedy to be applied where the court found an enrichment, a corresponding deprivation and the absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment. The court noted a monetary remedy was available to compensate the plaintiff for the value of services provided, but where a monetary award was deemed inadequate and there was a link between the contribution and the property, a constructive trust could be claimed. In Pettkus v. Becker at p. 852 Dickson J. said a right to property can be recognized where there is a “contribution [to the property] sufficiently substantial and direct as to entitle [the plaintiff] to a portion of the profits realized upon the sale of [the property]”.
"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.