I think that there is a danger of confusing two different limitation periods here: the limitation period in relation to the initial debt for the purchase of the desk and the limitation period in relation to any claim for restitution of the sums paid.

Under English law the limitation period in relation to the debt would have clearly expired, but (as the Limitation Act only bars the remedy and not the right) the debt still subsists and the sums paid would be a valid discharge of it. That the sums were paid in the discharge of a lawful debt should, I would think, be a total bar to restitution as it would be impossible to characterise the enrichment as "unjust".

COLIN RIEGELS
Barrister