Modern money had and received

Abstract

The many manifestations of money had and received have come to be treated as a single claim, to reverse a defective transfer of value. I show here that this tendency towards unification has led us to exaggerate the role of value, thus obscuring the normative role played by the notion of a 'transfer' from claimant to defendant. I argue that 'transfer' labels the legal mechanism through which the parties' balance sheet positions are affected. For cases that involve physical cash, the legal mechanism properly associated with a claim in unjust enrichment is a title transfer. For cases that involve bank money, the legal mechanism is a bank transfer, effected by participating banks as agents for payor and payee. I argue that we should welcome the move in Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Commissioners towards a transactional test, but that we must draw and defend narrow parameters for it.