Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract offers twelve original essays by leading contract scholars. As with the essays in the companion volume, Landmark Cases in the Law of Restitution (Hart, 2006) each essay takes as its focus a particular leading case, and analyses that case in its historical or theoretical context. The cases range from the early eighteenth- to the late twentieth-centuries, and deal with an array of contractual doctrines. Some of the essays call for their case to be stripped of its landmark status, whilst others argue that it has more to offer than we have previously appreciated. The particular historical context of these landmark cases, as revealed by the authors, often shows that our current assumptions about the case and what it stands for are either mistaken, or require radical modification. The book also explores several common themes which are fundamental to the development of the law of contract: for instance, the influence of commercial expectations, appeals to 'reason' and the significance of particular judicial ideologies and techniques.

Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort contains thirteen original essays on leading tort cases, ranging from the early nineteenth century to the present day. It is the third volume in a series of collected essays on landmark cases (the previous two volumes having dealt with restitution and contract). The cases examined raise a broad range of important issues across the law of tort, including such diverse areas as acts of state and public nuisance, as well as central questions relating to the tort of negligence. Several of the essays place cases in their historical context in ways that change our understanding of the case's significance. Sometimes the focus is on drawing out previously neglected aspects of cases which have been – undeservedly – assigned minor importance. Other essays explore the judicial methodologies and techniques that worked to shape leading principles of tort law. So much of tort law turns on cases, and there are so many cases, that all but the most recent decisions have a tendency to become reduced to terse propositions of law, so as to keep the subject manageable. This collection shows how important it is, despite the constant temptation to compression, not to lose sight of the contexts and nuances which qualify and illuminate so many leading authorities.

Landmark Cases in Equity continues the series of essay collections which began with Landmark Cases in the Law of Restitution (2006) and continued with Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract (2008) and Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort (2010). It contains essays on landmark cases in the development of equitable doctrine running from the seventeenth century to recent times. The range, breadth and social importance of equitable principles, as these affect commercial, domestic and even political matters are well known. By focusing on the historical development of these principles, the essays in this collection help us to understand them more clearly, and also provide insights into the processes of legal change through judicial innovation. Themes addressed in the essays include the nature of the courts' equitable jurisdiction, the development of property rights in equity, constraints on the powers of settlors to create express trusts, the duties of trustees and other fiduciaries, remedies for breach of these duties, and the evolution of constructive and resulting trusts.

It is now well established that the law of unjust enrichment forms an important and distinctive part of the English law of obligations. Restitutionary awards for unjust enrichment and for wrongdoing are clearly recognised for what they are. But these are recent developments. Before the last decade of the twentieth century the very existence of a separate law of unjust enrichment was controversial, its scope and content matters of dispute. In this collection of essays, a group of leading scholars look back and reappraise some of the landmark cases in the law of restitution. They range from the early seventeenth century to the mid-twentieth century, and shed new light on some classic decisions. Some argue that the importance of their case has been overstated; others, that it has been overlooked, or misconceived. All persuasively invite the reader to think again about some well-known authorities. The book is an essential resource for anyone, scholar, student or practitioner, with an interest in this fascinating area of the law.

In the depths of the Great Depression, when foreclosure rates skyrocketed across the United States, more than two dozen states passed mortgage-extension or -adjustment laws to help farmers and homeowners keep their properties. One such statute in Minnesota led to the most important property law case of its time and still casts a long shadow upon constitutional debates and our own era's severe economic downturn. Fighting Foreclosure marks the first book-length study of the landmark 1934 Supreme Court decision in Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell, which, by a 5-4 vote, upheld the Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Act. On the one hand, Blaisdell validated efforts by states to offer legislative relief to citizens struggling to keep their farms and homes. On the other, it caused an outcry among banking interests and conservative legal theorists, who argued that these laws violated the Contract Clause of the Constitution and interfered with our free market system. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes argued that the reasonable and limited nature of the law and the unusual severity of the emergency it addressed placed it firmly within the "police powers" of the states to protect the health and safety of the people. In a strongly worded dissent, Justice George Sutherland argued for a consistent and strict interpretation of the Contract Clause regardless of economic exigency. John Fliter and Derek Hoff provide a concise history and analysis of not only this landmark case and the reasoning behind its sharply divided decision but also of the entire history of the Contract Clause. They trace closely the agricultural crisis, political pressures, and farmer-protest movement that produced the Minnesota law. And their study contributes to scholarly debate about the origins of the Constitutional Revolution of 1937, by which the Supreme Court accepted the New Deal, as well as to public debates about constitutional interpretation and the role that government should play in providing relief to distressed citizens. In the midst of our nation's ongoing suffering from massive foreclosures and bankruptcies, Fighting Foreclosure also offers a potent reminder that the High Court's decisions often revolve around lives at risk as much as abstract legal debates.