Washington Law Review
Abstract
The scope of this Comment will be limited to discussion of restitution as an alternative remedy for a breach of contract by the defendant, and as a sole remedy for a plaintiff unable to enforce a contract by reason of his own breach, his non-performance of a condition, or the Statute of Frauds. Restitution as a remedy where no agreement has been entered into, or where an agreement is void or voidable, will not be treated, although some fraud and misrepresentation cases are cited for principles which are equally germane to the restitution discussion.
First Page
308
Recommended Citation
Donald P. Lehne,
Comment,
Restitution in Washington Contracts,
35 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J.
308
(1960).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol35/iss2/19