Strategies for agricultural change and the UK balance of payments

The world food crisis, Britain's reliance on imported food and feedstuffs and balance of payments difficulties were some of the factors which lent weight to the call for increased self-sufficiency in Britain's agriculture in the 1970s. This project considers two main areas: an investigation of the impact of radical agricultural change, designed to increase self-sufficiency, on the balance of payments; and, an appraisal of the potential role of the food industry within a radically different food system. The study proceeded by: an examination of the principles of agricultural policy and its development in Britain; an overview of the mechanism and meaning of the balance of payments; a consideration of the debate on agricultural import saving; the construction of radical agricultural strategies; the estimation of effects of the strategies, particularly to the balance of. payments; the role of the food industry and possible innovations within the strategies; a case study of textured vegetable proteins; and, the wider implications of implementation of radical agricultural alternatives. Two strategies were considered: a vegan system, involving no livestock; and, an intermediate system, including some livestock and dairy cattle. The study concludes that although agricultural change could in principle make a contribution to the balance of payments, implementation of agricultural change cannot be justified for this purpose alone. First, balance of payments problems can be solved by more appropriate methods. Second, the UK' s balance of payments problem has disappeared for the time being owing to North Sea oil and economic recession. Third, the political and social consequences of the changes investigated would be unacceptable. Progress in UK food policy is likely to be in the form of an integrated food and health policy.

The availability of proprietary restitution in cases of mistaken payments

This article is concerned with the availability of “proprietary restitution” in cases of mistaken payments. It is argued that the mistake of the claimant is an insufficient justification for proprietary restitution, however a close analysis of the case law demonstrates that the presence of additional factors can justify the availability of proprietary restitution in specific circumstances. The basis of proprietary restitution is to be found in the breach of a duty which arises separately from the claim for unjust enrichment. The significant contribution of this article is the analysis that knowledge merely creates a duty to maintain the fund until restitution is made, and that knowledge cannot establish the breach of this duty. Importantly, breach of this duty is established by a second condition which is demonstrated by the wilful misconduct of the recipient. It is this conduct which justifies the imposition of the constructive trust. By adopting this analysis, the proprietary claim in the context of mistaken transfers can be classified as forming part of the law of wrongs, rather than the law of unjust enrichment.