Copyright (c) 2001 The University of Louisville
Brandeis Law Journal
REMEDY DISCUSSION FORUM: TEACHING RESTITUTION
39 Brandeis L.J. 657
Candace Saari Kovacic-Fleischer*
When I began teaching in 1981, I was assigned two separate Remedies courses to teach during the fall: (1) Equitable Remedies and (2) Legal and Extraordinary Remedies. For the Equitable course, I chose the text Leavell, Love & Nelson, Equitable Remedies, Restitution and Damages (3d ed. 1980) and for the Legal and Extraordinary course, York and Bauman, Remedies (3d ed. 1979). I was not sure what "extraordinary remedies" were if they were not equitable remedies, so I assumed they must be this topic called restitution. Of course, most people refer to equitable remedies as the extraordinary ones, and my two Remedies courses were shortly thereafter combined into one, called, unsurprisingly, Remedies. Ever since then, however, the topic of restitution has intrigued me.
I did not remember studying restitution in law school. When I looked back at my law school notes, I discovered that I had, and had even read Moses v. Macpherlan. 1 Apparently, however, neither the subject matter nor its oldest case had made an impression on me. In fact, it was not until I tried to reduce Moses to a note for the 6th edition of Equitable Remedies, Restitution and Damages, 2 that I think I began to understand it. (I had always left it out of my syllabus before.) My note on Moses, which I had planned to make very brief, now contains a very long excerpt from the case.
When I began teaching Remedies, I had not had time to prepare ...
If you are interested in obtaining a lexis.com® ID and Password, please contact us at 1-(800)-227-4908 or visit us at http://www.lexisnexis.com/.