After meeting the four criteria, i.e. that the defendant has become unjustly enriched at the expense of the claimant and there are no defenses available to the defendant, a claimant is eligible for restitution of unjust enrichment as established in the case of Banque Financiere de la Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd. Change of position is one of the possible defenses which may be used on occasions where it would be excessive to allow a claimant to seek restitution with costs of the defendant. This essay will evaluate the change of position defense and reinforce the fact that it is largely ineffective in protecting a defendant from hardship. The purpose of restitution is to prevent unjust enrichment, and to deny the defense of change of position would contradict this fundamental principle. and function. The purpose of the change of position is to balance the difficulties between the plaintiff and the defendant. For example, in the landmark case Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale, it is stated that, "If the plaintiff pays money to the defendant for a mistake of fact, and the defendant then, acting in good faith, pays the money or part of it to charity, it is unfair to require the defendant to make compensation to the extent that he has thus changed his position. In such cases, Lord Goff stated that change of position is a good defense if done in good faith. This consolidated the status of change of position as an accepted defense choice. Change of position is not at the discretion of the court and there are guiding principles in their judgments. However, in Lipkin Gorman, Lord Goff stated that the development of change of position should be addressed case by case, leading to much uncertainty in the Law of Restitution today. ... middle of paper ... you must list all items purchased using the money In the Canadian case RBC Dominion Securities Inc v Dawson it was held that the courts had not required detailed evidence of expenditure. to demonstrate an extraordinary expense. The rationale behind this is that a beneficiary should be allowed to spend their money in any way they choose to do so, without fear of having to suddenly repay the benefit obtained, provided they have done so in good faith. Despite the courts' relaxed approach to extraordinary expenses, it is still unclear whether it involves something extraordinary, such as a special vacation package taken with the sum purchased or purchasing slightly more expensive groceries from the grocery store. The change of position is therefore ineffective due to the lack of clarity in each of the individual application principles of the defense.