83,229
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
===Citi vs lenders=== | ===Citi vs lenders=== | ||
'''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]]. | '''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]].<ref>{{restitution capsule}}</ref> 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]]. | ||
'''As agent''': If Citi acted as agent, then we look through Citi to its principal, Revlon. That Revlon didn’t, itself, ask anyone to pay anything to anyone, and didn’t itself pay anything to anyone, doesn’t matter. Citi’s actions, [[Ostensible authority|ostensibly]] on its behalf, are attributable to it. | '''As agent''': If Citi acted as agent, then we look through Citi to its principal, Revlon. That Revlon didn’t, itself, ask anyone to pay anything to anyone, and didn’t itself pay anything to anyone, doesn’t matter. Citi’s actions, [[Ostensible authority|ostensibly]] on its behalf, are attributable to it. |