Discharge-for-value defense: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|negotiation|}}{{Discharge for value capsule}} | {{a|negotiation|}}{{Discharge for value capsule}} | ||
Note in particular the finding in {{casenote|Citigroup|Brigade Capital Management}} — which, in our humble opinion, rather mounts the pavements — sidewalks, sorry — and runs down peacable pedestrians perambulating the [[common law]] of [[contract]] – that it it makes no difference that, at the time of the mistaken payment, the debt in question was not yet due under the contract. | |||
There is no equivalent under the English law of [[restitution]], where an enriched lender has to return the money: {{casenote|Barclays Bank Ltd|WJ Simms}}. This darkened cranny of the common law was exposed to harsh daylight when [[Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management|Citigroup tripped over it]] while trying to reclaim half a [[yard]] they’d accidentally shelled out to some distressed debt lenders to Revlon in 2020. | There is no equivalent under the English law of [[restitution]], where an enriched lender has to return the money: {{casenote|Barclays Bank Ltd|WJ Simms}}. This darkened cranny of the common law was exposed to harsh daylight when [[Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management|Citigroup tripped over it]] while trying to reclaim half a [[yard]] they’d accidentally shelled out to some distressed debt lenders to Revlon in 2020. | ||