Defendant was the foreman for Plaintiff and placed orders with X in return for a bribe.
Plaintiff brought an action against Defendant to reclaim the bribe via constructive trust.
CA denied that a constructive trust existed, saying instead that Defendant was merely under a fiduciary duty in personam to pay over the money as being owed to Plaintiff.
Ask questions š Get answers š It's simple šļøššļø
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Trusts and Equity | Fiduciaries Notes (31 pages) |
Trusts and Equity | Trust Remedies Including Tracing Knowing Receipt Trust Dutiies And Powers And Equitable Damages Notes (60 pages) |