Remedial consistency in private law

This article is concerned with the concept of ‘remedial consistency,’ the consistency of remedial rights with primary rights in the sense I explain. I argue that the requirement of remedial consistency has important implications across private law. It suggests that the ‘continuity thesis’ does not provide a justification for the right to compensation for a wrong, and I argue that rights to compensation are not generally based on wrongdoing. I also consider whether the absence of a right to specific performance is consistent with the existence of a duty of performance, and I discuss the need for alternative remedies to be mutually consistent. I also discuss the implications of remedial consistency for the concept of unjust enrichment, and I argue on the basis of remedial consistency for the general availability of proprietary claims for invalid transfers.