Talk:Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Law Low‑importance

	Australia portal Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Typos?

In the section on Judgement, should it say that Pavey & Mathews would have received less restitution, rather than less retribution?

Also, in the comments of Deane J, should it read: "unjust enrichment in the law of this country… constitutes a unifying legal concept which explains why the law recognises, in a variety of distinct categories of case, an obligation on the part of a defendant," rather than and obligation? Aboctok (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the typos, you are correct & I have fixed them. Find bruce (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]