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:
Louis Joseph
Date:
Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:38:53 +0800
Re:
Query

 

Dear all

I do believe that I did misunderstand Mr Sheehan's question. My apologies. For what it is worth, I accept his answer: it cannot be recovered at least under the rule in Moses v Macferlan. My apologies.

 

Louis Joseph

----- Original Message -----

 

From: joseph
To: Duncan Sheehan
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: RDG: Query

Duncan Sheehan asked on Wednesday, February 09, 2000 10:21 PM (ST)

If I buy a desk in a furniture store and forget to pay for seven years and nobody sues me, but then I remember and pay, believing wrongly that the limitation period in contract cases is 10 years instead of the six that is under the Limitation Act 1980 section 5 can I recover?

At the risk of stating the obvious (and/or going on a tangent of my own) should not the answer to the above question be predicated upon the answer to the following question: When does the limitation period begin to run? In Kleinwort Benson, as the money claimed by the plaintiff-bank was paid to the local authorities before the six year limitation period under section 5 of the 1980 Act, the plaintiff-bank contended that pursuant to section 32(1)(c) of the same Act, the limitation period only began to run from the time the mistake was or could reasonably be discovered. And, of course, that date was the date of judgment in Hazell v Hammersmith LBC. On the other side, the local authorities argued that: (a) the true import of section 32(1)(c) is that it does not touch on mistakes of law; and (b) the proper interpretation of the phrase 'discovered' vis-a-vis mistakes under section 32(1)(c) pointed solely to mistakes of fact and not mistakes of law. As we all know the majority of their Lordships did not buy the argument of the local authorities. Lord Goff ruled that the equitable rule (i.e., that time should only run from the time at which the mistake was, or could reasonably be, discovered) which underpins all mistakes applied immaterial of whether they were mistakes of fact or mistakes of law.

Louis Joseph


<== 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! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !