Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management: Difference between revisions

Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management (view source)

615 bytes removed , 17 February 2021

no edit summary

82,891

edits

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 We struggle to agree with the court’s conclusion, and the heart of the matter is its application of the [[discharge-for-value defense]].
-{{discharge for value capsule}} The [[discharge-for-value defence]] defeats a claim for [[unjustified enrichment]] where a recipient, without notice of mistake and not having induced the payment, receives funds that discharges a valid debt:
+{{discharge for value capsule}}
-{{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}}}}
 This is the crux of the decision: the payment, though mistaken, discharged a debt, was made without inducement and receiveed without notice of the mistake.