Restitution in America: Why the US Refuses to Join the Global Restitution Party

In the past generation, restitution law has emerged as a globalphenomenon. From its Oxbridge home, restitution migrated tothe rest of the Commonwealth, and ongoing Europeanization projectshave brought the common law of restitution into contact withthe Romanist concept of unjust enrichment, further internationalizingthis movement. In contrast, in the United States, scholarlyinterest in restitution, in terms of books, articles, treatises,symposia and courses on restitution, is meager. Similarly, whilerestitution, equity and tracing cases receive considerable treatmentat the highest levels of the English judiciary, US courts seemuninterested in these issues, rarely producing the theory-ladenopinions that have become quite common in the House of Lords.The situation is particularly curious because restitution isgenerally thought to be the invention of late nineteenth-centuryAmerican scholars. This article explains this divergence. Iargue that the Commonwealth restitution discourse is largelya product of pre- or anti-realist legal thought which generatesscepticism within the American academic-legal establishment.The article identifies the two dominant camps in American privatelaw thought—left-leaning redistributionalists and thecentre-right legal economists—and shows that neither hasany use for the Commonwealth's discourse. I conclude by analysingthe emerging drafts of the Restatement of Restitution and forecastthe future of American restitution law.