![]() |
RDG
online Restitution Discussion Group Archives |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
I've just got a copy of Fea v Roberts, 9/9/05.
An executor mistakenly (and foolishly) paid a legacy of over £100,000
to a namesake of the legatee, and sought to recover it. The namesake thought
it odd (he didn't know the testator), but didn't think further and proceeded
to live a life of Reilly (or so he alleged). Two nice issues:
(1) Limitation . If a payer is foolish, does time start
running under s.32 Limitation Act before the payment (on the basis that
ex hypothesi he could have discovered it)? No: limitation can't run till
you have a cause of action in the first place.
(2) Change of position: was the payee in good faith a
la Niru?
No, even though he wasn't dishonest.
All the best
Andrew
Andrew Tettenborn MA LLB Tel: 01392-263189 / +44-392-263189 (international)
Snailmail: School of Law, Exeter Law School homepage: http://www.law.ex.ac.uk
LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the
law. (Ambrose Bierce, 1906).
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==> |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
» » » » » |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |