No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Abstract Charities, political parties and lovers, if one may use that word to embrace both sexes, have this in common, that they are frequently the objects of generous although not always disinterested giving. The Asil Nadir affair, however, and the recent experience of the Conservative party in that matter, recall what is anyhow well known, that some donors find it easier to be openhanded with money other than their own. A question thus arises in the law of restitution. When the story comes out, must the donee make restitution to the true but unknowing benefactor? Suppose, for example, that a tycoon takes the money of one of his companies and gives it to a political party. Can the company reclaim that money and, if so, under what conditions? Does it have to show that the money is still in the hands of the political party? Does it have to establish that the party knew that the donor was misdirecting money not his own? The answers to these questions are not in serious doubt. Yes, the company can recover. No, it need not show either that the money survives or that the donee knew. The restitutionary liability of the donee is strict, albeit subject to defences. But a number of cases, all of them argued on the basis of chancery authorities but few of them actually concerned with donees, have somewhat muddied the waters.
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.