Moses v Macferlan
Lord Mansfield held that an action for money had and received lies where the defendant is obliged by the ties of natural justice and equity to refund money, laying the foundation of the law of restitution.
Facts
Moses endorsed to Macferlan four promissory notes, on Macferlan's agreement that he would not be liable on the endorsement. Macferlan nevertheless sued Moses on the endorsement in a court of conscience, which refused to hear evidence of the agreement and gave judgment against Moses, who paid. Moses then sued Macferlan in the King's Bench to recover the money, in an action for money had and received.
Legal principle
Lord Mansfield held that Moses could recover the money. He said that the action for money had and received lies for money paid by mistake, or upon a consideration which happens to fail, or for money got through imposition, or extortion, or oppression, or an undue advantage taken of the plaintiff's situation, contrary to laws made for the protection of persons under those circumstances. In one word, the gist of this kind of action is that the defendant, upon the circumstances of the case, is obliged by the ties of natural justice and equity to refund the money. Although the decision on the facts was later doubted, the case is the classic statement of the basis of the law of restitution.
Related cases on principles of unjust enrichment
- Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd v Menelaou [2015] UKSC 66, [2016] AC 176
- Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd [1999] 1 AC 221
- Benedetti v Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50, [2014] AC 938
- Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 WLR 1752
- Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102
- Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2017] UKSC 29, [2018] AC 275
- Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548
- Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP [2017] UKSC 32, [2018] AC 313
Studying restitution and unjust enrichment? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
