82,891
edits
Banque Worms v BankAmerica International: Difference between revisions
Banque Worms v BankAmerica International (view source)
Revision as of 18:10, 18 February 2021
, 18 February 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
SPI argued that it was entitled to a return of the payment under restitutionary principles unless Banque Worms had relied on the payment to its detriment, and it hadn’t. The New York Court of Appeals considered that section 14 of the ''Restatement of the Law of Restitution''’s description of the [[discharge-for-value defense]] as applying in the case. That provides: | SPI argued that it was entitled to a return of the payment under restitutionary principles unless Banque Worms had relied on the payment to its detriment, and it hadn’t. The New York Court of Appeals considered that section 14 of the ''Restatement of the Law of Restitution''’s description of the [[discharge-for-value defense]] as applying in the case. That provides: | ||
{{quote|{{Restatement of Restitution Section 14}}}} | {{quote|''{{Restatement of Restitution Section 14}}''}} | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||