Discharge-for-value defense: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tag: New redirect
 
Tag: Removed redirect
Line 1: Line 1:
#redirect[[Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management]]
{{a|negotiation|}}{{Discharge for value capsule}}
{{sa}}
*[[Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management]]

Revision as of 12:56, 17 February 2021

Negotiation Anatomy™


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

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

See also