An action for money had and received to the plaintiff's use is the name for a common law claim derived from the form of action known as indebitatus assumpsit. The action enabled one person to recover money which has been received by another: for example, where a plaintiff paid money to the defendant while labouring under a mistake of fact or where there was a total failure of consideration. The action was a personal action only available in respect of money, rather than other benefits. Where the benefit received by the defendant was services or goods, the appropriate action was a quantum meruit or a quantum valebant, respectively.
The action for money had and received formed a part of the law of quasi-contract. Although the forms of action were abolished in the mid-19th century, reference continues to be made to the action in modern pleading.Cf. Graham Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution (3rd ed, 2015). The terminology of "quasi-contract" has been replaced by the more modern terminology of unjust enrichment in most common law jurisdictions.
Case law Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Bur 1005; 97 Eng. Rep. 676 (King's Bench, England) Bingham v. Cabot, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 19 (1795) (Supreme Court of the United States) Kershaw v Kirkpatrick UKPC 4 (Privy Council, from Canada) Sinclair v Brougham AC 398 (House of Lords, England) Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd 1 WLR 1468 (Court of Appeal of England and Wales) Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 2 AC 548 (House of Lords, England) The Mikhail Lermontov 1 Lloyd's Rep 579 (High Court of Australia) Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC UKHL 12 (House of Lords, England) Philip Collins Ltd v Davis 3 All ER 808 (High Court, England)
See also
Law of Restitution
Notes