Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd [1981] Ch 105 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts. It held that a trust arose to protect a payment made under a mistake, with the benefit of a proprietary remedy. This is seen important for the question of what response, personal or proprietary, may come from a claim in unjust enrichment. The decision in the case has been subjected to "sustained, authoritative criticism", both academically and judicially.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd [1981] Ch 105 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts. It held that a trust arose to protect a payment made under a mistake, with the benefit of a proprietary remedy. This is seen important for the question of what response, personal or proprietary, may come from a claim in unjust enrichment. The decision in the case has been subjected to "sustained, authoritative criticism", both academically and judicially. (en)
|
name
| - Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank Ltd (en)
|
foaf:depiction
| |
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
thumbnail
| |
citations
| |
court
| |
judges
| |
keywords
| - (en)
- Constructive trust (en)
- Mistaken payment (en)
- Proprietary claim (en)
|
has abstract
| - Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd [1981] Ch 105 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts. It held that a trust arose to protect a payment made under a mistake, with the benefit of a proprietary remedy. This is seen important for the question of what response, personal or proprietary, may come from a claim in unjust enrichment. As a matter of the conflict of laws, the court held that New York law was the proper law to determine if the payor retained an equitable interest in the sums paid by mistake, and that this was a substantive rule rather than a procedural one. The decision in the case has been subjected to "sustained, authoritative criticism", both academically and judicially. (en)
|
gold:hypernym
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is Wikipage disambiguates
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |