On Tuesday, January 31, 2006, the Court of Appeal issued an Order Modifying Opinion and Denying Respondents' Petition for Rehearing in Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jan. 10, 2006). My original post on Colgan is here. The most interesting thing in the modification order is new footnote 24, concerning the nature of "restitution":
“[T]he terms equity and equitable are not always used to refer to remedial characteristics of a case. ... [E]quitable ... sometimes refers to fairness, sometimes to the jurisdictional mass of equity precedent, sometimes to remedies.” (Dobbs, Law of Remedies (2d ed. 1993) Meaning of Equity, § 2.1(3), p. 55; see 12 Corbin on Contracts (Interim edition 2002) Restitution, § 1103, p. 10 [“The remedy of restitution . . . can not properly be described as either ‘legal’ or ‘equitable’ in any narrowly restricted signification of those terms”].)(Mod. Order at 2.)
Comments