On May 9, 8:08=A0pm, "PDR" wrote:
> 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 mone=
y,
> and when the error subsequently came to light the company had to swallow t=
he
> 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 th=
e
> thread someone else has stated the specific legalese (with reference) whic=
h
> 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 =A0person 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.
You like me came to law via engineering and contract disputes with
contractors that you had to provide a dim witted solicitor facts and
figures for him to plead....you no doubt saw how easy that was, But I
have to say an old mate of mine created Estoppel and when he was alive
we argue it would you believe, he was much better at it than I ever
became and we were much better at mathematics than he ever was.
That being said I think you will find that Estoppel was limited to
examining existing fact and extended to apply to future intentions
using *High Trees House LTD. which over came Pinnel's Case and if you
wish to argue mistake ....you'd better argue Promissory Estoppel and
not Estoppel. |