Discharge-for-value defense: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Redirected page to Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management Tag: New redirect |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Removed redirect to Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management Tag: Removed redirect |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|negotiation|}}{{Discharge for value capsule}} | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management]] |
Revision as of 12:56, 17 February 2021
Negotiation Anatomy™
|
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