This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

BCL Law Notes Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes

Lipkin Gorman V. Karpnale Ii Notes

Updated Lipkin Gorman V. Karpnale Ii Notes

Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes

Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL

Approximately 620 pages

These are detailed case summaries (excerpts from cases - not paraphrased) I made during the Oxford BCL for the Restitution of Unjust Enrichment course....

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale

Facts

Cass was a partner in the appellant firm of solicitors, Lipkin Gorman ("the solicitors"). Cass withdrew 323,222.14 from the solicitors' bank account. The sum of 100,313.16 was replaced, recovered or accounted for, but the balance of 222,908.48 was money which Cass stole from the solicitors and proved to be irrecoverable from him. Cass staked 561,014.06 at the gaming tables of the Playboy Club, a licensed casino owned and operated by the respondent, Karpnale Ltd. ("the club"). Cass won 378,294.06. After making adjustments for certain cheques, the club agreed that the club won and Cass lost overall, in a matter of months, the sum of 174,745. The parties also agreed that the maximum gross personal resources of Cass amounted to 20,050 and that at least the sum of 154,695 won by the club and lost by Cass was derived from money stolen from the solicitors. The club acted innocently throughout and was not aware that the club had received 154,695 derived from the solicitors until the solicitors claimed restitution.

Holding

Lord Templeman

Explanation for why a bona fide purchaser for value does not enrich

An innocent recipient of stolen money may not be enriched at all; if Cass had paid 20,000 derived from the solicitors to a car dealer for a motor car priced at 20,000, the car dealer would not have been enriched. The car dealer would have received 20,000 for a car worth 20,000. But an innocent recipient of stolen money will be enriched if the recipient has not given full consideration. If Cass had given 20,000 of the solicitors' money to a friend as a gift, the friend would have been enriched and unjustly enriched because a donee of stolen money cannot in good conscience rely on the bounty of the thief to deny restitution to the victim of the theft.

Did the Club pay consideration?

The club claims that the club gave consideration for the sum of 154,695 by allowing Cass to gamble and agreeing to pay his winnings and therefore the club was not enriched or, alternatively, was not unjustly enriched.

Argument: The club argues that when Cass paid, for example, 5,000 in cash to the cashier or to the croupier, there came into existence a contract which was not a gaming contract. In consideration for 5,000 paid by Cass, the club agreed to cash any chips retained, won or otherwise acquired and at any time presented for payment. This was a contract, so it was said, in contemplation of gaming and not a contract by way of gaming. If Cass staked a chip and the croupier accepted the stake and played the game, there came into existence a second contract.

Rejected: But in the present case the club retained some of the stolen money. The club cannot as against the solicitors retain the stolen money save by relying on the gaming contracts which, as between the club and Cass, entitled the club to retain the solicitors' money which Cass lost at the gaming table. Those gaming contracts were void. The club remains unjustly enriched to the extent of 154,695.

Another way of analysing the situation is this. When Cass entered the club as a member, the club made to him a revocable offer to gamble with him in the manner and upon the terms dictated by the club. Those terms required Cass to pay his gambling stakes in advance and to allow the club to pay their gambling losses in arrears. The revocable offer by the club was accepted by Cass when he staked a chip and became irrevocable when the croupier accepted the chip as a stake. There was only one contract and that was a gaming contract.

Conclusion

My conclusion is that the club has no right to retain stolen money received by the club from the thief. Repayment by the club to the victim, limited to the net amount of stolen money which the club retains, will not inflict a net loss on the club as a result of the transactions between the club and the thief. In the present case money stolen from the solicitors by Cass has been paid to and is now retained by the club and ought to be repaid to the solicitors.

What is the Unjust Factor? The fact that money was stolen?

When Cass lost and paid 154,695 to the club as a result of gaming contracts, he made to the club a completed gift of 154,695. The club received stolen money by way of gift from the thief; the club, being a volunteer, has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the solicitors from whom the money had been stolen and the club must reimburse the solicitors.

Lord Goff

Whether the solicitors had legal title to the money is decisive

The first ground is concerned with the solicitors' title to the money received by Cass (through Chapman) from the bank. It is to be observed that the present action, like the action inClarke v.Shee and Johnson, is concerned with a common law claim to money, where the money in question has not been paid by the appellant directly to the respondents - as is usually the case where money is, for example, recoverable as having been paid under a mistake of fact, or for a consideration which has failed. On the contrary, here the money had been paid to the respondents by a third party, Cass; and in such a case the appellant has to establish a basis on which he is entitled to the money. This (at least, as a general rule) he does by showing that the money is his legal property, as appears from Lord Mansfield's judgment inClarke v.Shee and Johnson. If he can do so, he may be entitled to succeed in a claim against the third party for money had and received to his use, though not if the third party has received the money in good faith and for a valuable consideration. The cases in which such a claim has succeeded are, I believe, very rare: see the cases, including Clarke v. Shee and Johnson, collected in Goff and Jones, The Law of Restitution, 3rd ed. (1986), p. 64, note 29. This is probably because, at common law, property in money, like other fungibles, is lost as such when it is mixed with other money. Furthermore, it appears that in these cases the action for money had and...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes.

More Restitution Of Unjust Enrichment Bcl Samples