Template:Discharge for value capsule: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The [[discharge-for-value defense]] defeats a claim for [[unjustified enrichment]] where a recipient, without notice of mistake and not having induced the payment, receives funds that | The [[discharge-for-value defense]] defeats a claim for [[unjustified enrichment]] under [[New York law]] where a recipient, without notice of mistake and not having induced the payment, receives funds that discharge a valid debt: | ||
{{quote|“When a beneficiary receives money to which it is entitled and has no knowledge that the money was erroneously wired, the beneficiary should not have to wonder whether it may retain the funds; rather, such a beneficiary should be able to consider the transfer of funds as a final and complete transaction, not subject to revocation.” {{citer|Banque Worms|Bank America|1991|570 N.E. 2d|189}}}} | {{quote|“When a beneficiary receives money to which it is entitled and has no knowledge that the money was erroneously wired, the beneficiary should not have to wonder whether it may retain the funds; rather, such a beneficiary should be able to consider the transfer of funds as a final and complete transaction, not subject to revocation.” {{citer|Banque Worms|Bank America|1991|570 N.E. 2d|189}}}} | ||
Latest revision as of 21:49, 18 February 2021
The discharge-for-value defense defeats a claim for unjustified enrichment under New York law where a recipient, without notice of mistake and not having induced the payment, receives funds that discharge a valid debt:
“When a beneficiary receives money to which it is entitled and has no knowledge that the money was erroneously wired, the beneficiary should not have to wonder whether it may retain the funds; rather, such a beneficiary should be able to consider the transfer of funds as a final and complete transaction, not subject to revocation.” Banque Worms v Bank America (1991) 570 N.E. 2d 189