Knowledge

Money had and received

Source 📝

57:. Although the forms of action were abolished in the mid-19th century, reference continues to be made to the action in modern pleading. The terminology of "quasi-contract" has been replaced by the more modern terminology of 266: 34:. The action enabled one person to recover money which has been received by another: for example, where a plaintiff paid money to the defendant while labouring under a mistake of fact or where there was a 38:. The action was a personal action only available in respect of money, rather than other benefits. Where the benefit received by the defendant was services or goods, the appropriate action was a 95: 151: 226: 292: 197: 318: 112: 100: 124: 88: 76: 280: 139: 119: 190: 252: 131: 380: 240: 385: 159: 332: 183: 35: 144: 83: 164: 30: 8: 107: 71: 58: 256: 46: 214: 54: 40: 25: 374: 343: 306: 21: 175: 53:
The action for money had and received formed a part of the
18:
action for money had and received to the plaintiff's use
152:
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC
268:
Carl-Zeiss Stiftung v Herbert Smith & Co (No 2)
372: 191: 294:Belmont Finance Corp v Williams Ltd (No 2) 198: 184: 363:The Principles of the Law of Restitution 320:Criterion Properties plc v Stratford LLC 228:Banque Belge pour L'Etranger v Hambrouck 373: 205: 179: 75:(1760) 2 Bur 1005; 97 Eng. Rep. 676 ( 125:Court of Appeal of England and Wales 13: 135:2 AC 548 (House of Lords, England) 89:Supreme Court of the United States 61:in most common law jurisdictions. 14: 397: 155:UKHL 12 (House of Lords, England) 355: 281:Re Montagu's Settlement Trusts 120:Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd 87:, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 19 (1795) ( 36:total failure of consideration 1: 253:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 132:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 7: 241:Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson 171: 64: 10: 402: 160:Philip Collins Ltd v Davis 333:English unjust enrichment 329: 315: 303: 289: 277: 263: 249: 237: 223: 211: 349: 145:High Court of Australia 24:claim derived from the 140:The Mikhail Lermontov 96:Kershaw v Kirkpatrick 55:law of quasi-contract 31:indebitatus assumpsit 218:(1826) 2 C&P 176 143:1 Lloyd's Rep 579 ( 108:Sinclair v Brougham 381:English trusts law 361:Cf. Graham Virgo, 344:Law of Restitution 20:is the name for a 386:Unjust enrichment 339: 338: 206:Ignorance sources 72:Moses v Macferlan 59:unjust enrichment 393: 366: 359: 321: 295: 269: 229: 200: 193: 186: 177: 176: 84:Bingham v. Cabot 50:, respectively. 47:quantum valebant 401: 400: 396: 395: 394: 392: 391: 390: 371: 370: 369: 365:(3rd ed, 2015). 360: 356: 352: 340: 335: 325: 319: 311: 299: 293: 285: 273: 267: 259: 245: 233: 227: 219: 215:Holiday v Sigil 207: 204: 174: 67: 12: 11: 5: 399: 389: 388: 383: 368: 367: 353: 351: 348: 347: 346: 337: 336: 330: 327: 326: 316: 313: 312: 304: 301: 300: 290: 287: 286: 278: 275: 274: 264: 261: 260: 250: 247: 246: 238: 235: 234: 224: 221: 220: 212: 209: 208: 203: 202: 195: 188: 180: 173: 170: 169: 168: 163:3 All ER 808 ( 156: 148: 136: 128: 116: 113:House of Lords 104: 103:, from Canada) 92: 80: 66: 63: 41:quantum meruit 26:form of action 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 398: 387: 384: 382: 379: 378: 376: 364: 358: 354: 345: 342: 341: 334: 328: 323: 322: 314: 309: 308: 302: 297: 296: 288: 283: 282: 276: 271: 270: 262: 258: 255: 254: 248: 243: 242: 236: 231: 230: 222: 217: 216: 210: 201: 196: 194: 189: 187: 182: 181: 178: 166: 162: 161: 157: 154: 153: 149: 146: 142: 141: 137: 134: 133: 129: 126: 122: 121: 117: 114: 110: 109: 105: 102: 101:Privy Council 98: 97: 93: 90: 86: 85: 81: 78: 74: 73: 69: 68: 62: 60: 56: 51: 49: 48: 43: 42: 37: 33: 32: 27: 23: 19: 362: 357: 317: 305: 298:1 All ER 393 291: 279: 265: 251: 239: 225: 213: 158: 150: 138: 130: 123:1 WLR 1468 ( 118: 106: 94: 82: 77:King's Bench 70: 52: 45: 39: 29: 17: 15: 375:Categories 307:Re Diplock 167:, England) 165:High Court 115:, England) 79:, England) 22:common law 28:known as 272:2 Ch 276 232:1 KB 321 172:See also 111:AC 398 ( 99:UKPC 4 ( 65:Case law 324:UKHL 28 257:UKHL 12 310:AC 251 284:Ch 264 244:Ch 265 350:Notes 44:or a 331:See 16:An 377:: 199:e 192:t 185:v 147:) 127:) 91:)

Index

common law
form of action
indebitatus assumpsit
total failure of consideration
quantum meruit
quantum valebant
law of quasi-contract
unjust enrichment
Moses v Macferlan
King's Bench
Bingham v. Cabot
Supreme Court of the United States
Kershaw v Kirkpatrick
Privy Council
Sinclair v Brougham
House of Lords
Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd
Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd
The Mikhail Lermontov
High Court of Australia
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC
Philip Collins Ltd v Davis
High Court
v
t
e
Holiday v Sigil
Banque Belge pour L'Etranger v Hambrouck
Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.