82,903
edits
Lloyds Bank v Independent Insurance: Difference between revisions
Lloyds Bank v Independent Insurance (view source)
Revision as of 13:47, 20 February 2021
, 20 February 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
{{Quote|“(2) [''A claim for [[restitution]]''] may however fail if [...] (b) the payment is made for good [[consideration]], in particular if the money is paid to discharge and does discharge a [[debt]] owed to the payee (or a [[principal]] on whose behalf he is authorised to receive the payment) by the payer or by a third party by whom he is authorised to discharge the debt”}} | {{Quote|“(2) [''A claim for [[restitution]]''] may however fail if [...] (b) the payment is made for good [[consideration]], in particular if the money is paid to discharge and does discharge a [[debt]] owed to the payee (or a [[principal]] on whose behalf he is authorised to receive the payment) by the payer or by a third party by whom he is authorised to discharge the debt”}} | ||
Lloyds had made the rather careful argument that, whether or not it was authorised to make the payment, Independent would be receive a “windfall” enrichment at Lloyd’s expense, since the effect of authorisation would be to discharge the debt. Enrichment, yes; “unjustified”, no: this was no | Lloyds had made the rather careful argument that, whether or not it was authorised to make the payment, Independent would be receive a “windfall” enrichment at Lloyd’s expense, since the effect of authorisation would be to discharge the debt. Enrichment, yes; “unjustified”, no: this was no “windfall” in Independent’s hands (except to the extent WF could not meet the debt at all), but the satisfaction of a debt. Nor was Lloyds’ without ''legal'' remedy: as they had acted within their mandate, Lloyds had a claim, in the form of their overdraft, against WF.<ref>That WF might not be able to ''pay'' it, meaning they were short of a ''factual'' remedy, is beside the point. This the the business as usual risk that a bank takes on, and can guard against by not advancing funds against uncleared payments.</ref> | ||
It is true that there is an ''economic'' argument here, which Robert Goff adverted to in Barclays: | It is true that there is an ''economic'' argument here, which Robert Goff adverted to in Barclays: | ||