Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management: Difference between revisions

'''As principal''': If Citi acted as a principal, then no debt was due, no contract existed, and we would look at common law principles of [[unjust enrichment]] and [[restitution]] to return [[money had and received]]. This is a common lawyer’s duck-billed platypus: a civil action that sounds neither in [[contract]] — there is none — or [[tort]] — there has been none — but just exists in its own jurisprudential space: a sort of equity for people who don’t like equity. An alternative action might lie in the tort of conversion. But, as against the lenders, Citi was acting, and holding itself out as acting, as [[agent]].