wrote in message
news:ab5cecf3-c42b-4a13-a78c-acfa5d3d5f78@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Utter and complete rubbish
Good point, well argued. I'm not suggesting this is a black and white
scenario, hence my frequenctly repeated recommendations to seek
authoritative advice and support (union/CAB/ACAS). But the legal situation
under contract law DOES allow circumstances under which the money is
legitimately and irreversably his, as I outlined.
I was aware of this because I have seen it in operation - an HR cock-up
resulted in someone being paid overtime that they weren't entitled to, but
when they queried it they were told it was correct. So they spent the money,
and when the error subsequently came to light the company had to swallow the
loss BECAUSE of the email from HR (which satisfied the "realistic
expectation" requirement) and the fact that the individual had blown the
money on a new plasma TV (satisfying the "significant hardship"
requirement).
It would seem that I am not the only one who thinks so. Looking back up the
thread someone else has stated the specific legalese (with reference) which
defines the tests. You obviously missed, so I've included it below.
PDR
"David" wrote in message
news:b9dd7639-b23c-47f5-a92b-5a2a60c2ba55@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[...]
Generally, a person making a payment under mistake of fact may be
estopped from pursuing recovery of the overpayment. For this to
happen, three conditions must be satisfied. First, that the payer (the
employer) in some way represented the payment was actually due to the
employee. Secondly, the payee must show that this inaccurate
information led him to believe he was entitled to the money. Thirdly,
the payee must show that because of the mistake, he changed his
position in reliance upon the payment so as to make it inequitable for
him to repay the money (Chitty on Contracts, 25th Edition, para 1961).
This may well be the case with you and you might well politely warn
them to avoid deducting the overpayment on these grounds.
|