Dear all,

I'd be really grateful for any references to authorities (academic or

judicial) on the limitation period applicable where a claim is brought

against the briber (payer of secret commission) for loss caused to a

principle because a secret commission was paid to his agent.

Presumably, if the secret commission was paid and received where both

payer and payee were acting dishonestly, the cause of action would be

based on

fraud (and the limitation period could be extended accordingly).

However, what is the position where:

(i) the Commission is paid honestly, the payer honestly if wrongly

believing that the payment would be (perhaps had already been)

disclosed?

(ii) Is the matter different if the agent is held to have acted

fraudulently but the payer is not? (Is the fraudulent motive of the

agent attributable to the payer of the commission)?

(iii) If the agent's nondisclosure of the commission is held to be

fraudulent concealment for limitation purposes, is that state of mind

attributed to the payer, so that the limitation period is extended as

against the payer of the secret commission too?

Many thanks

Ger

This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.