Cass (Trustee in Bankruptcy) v. Karpnale? (Robert Stevens, 15 Dec 2000)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Robert Stevens
Date:	Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:10:49
Re:	Cass (Trustee in Bankruptcy) v. Karpnale?

I would have thought that one of the essential features of a gift was donative intent. Certainly the Insolvency Act (s339, s 238) assumes that gifts and payments other than for valuable consideration are not synonymous. If this is incorrect as a matter of law it would be a shame as the law would be strangely out of step with every day language.

----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Scully
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 5:58 PM
Subject: RE: Re: [RDG:] Cass (Trustee in Bankruptcy) v. Karpnale?

Firstly I left out the word "voluntary" before "disposition of property". Secondly, in the case of a mistaken payment, the mistake vitiates this voluntary element. If a mistaken payment is subsequently ratified (e.g. if I pay X £100 meaning to pay Y, discover my mistake and tell X to keep the money anyway), then the ratification removes this vitiating factor and mistaken payment becomes a gift.

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.