Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management: Difference between revisions

Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management (view source)

347 bytes removed , 18 February 2021

no edit summary

82,891

edits

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 Section 14 of the ''Restatement'' provides:
-{{quote|A creditor of another or one having a lien on another’s property who has received from a third person any benefit in discharge of the debt or lien, is under no duty to make restitution therefor, although the discharge was given by mistake of the transferor as to his interests or duties, if the transferee made no misrepresentation and did not have notice of the transferor’s mistake.}}
+{{quote|{{Restatement of Restitution Section 14}}}}
 One might take the court to task for being a little too literal there. Nor does the court seem to have considered what “in discharge of the debt” means, but assumes it means that, mathematically, “has the effect of discharging the debt”. One could apply a ''reductio ad absurdam'' here: ''any'' payment made by a debtor to a creditor, apropos anything, would have the effect of retiring debt.  If I have a contract and, for good consideration, have borrowed money for eight years, my accidental ''factual'' repayment of it early, without legal obligation to do so — worse, my dopey ''agent’s'' — surely ''cannot'' unilaterally [[amend]] that [[contract]].