Harman's Estate v Bartholomew 1955 (2) SA 302 (N)

Harman's Estate v Bartholomew 1955 (2) SA 302 (N)

Issue: Whether a person who has received a benefit from another person under a mistaken belief that they were entitled to that benefit is liable to return the benefit, even if they have changed their position in reliance on the receipt of the benefit.

Facts:

Harman's Estate, the executor of the estate of the deceased, paid a sum of money to Bartholomew, a creditor of the deceased, in the mistaken belief that Bartholomew was entitled to that payment. Bartholomew received the payment and changed his position in reliance on the receipt of the payment.

Harman's Estate then discovered that Bartholomew was not entitled to the payment and demanded that Bartholomew return the money. Bartholomew refused to return the money, arguing that he was not liable to do so because he had changed his position in reliance on the receipt of the payment.

Harman's Estate then sued Bartholomew for the return of the money.

Held:

The Court held that Bartholomew was liable to return the money to Harman's Estate. The Court reasoned that Bartholomew had been unjustly enriched by the receipt of the payment and that he was therefore liable to return the money, even though he had changed his position in reliance on the receipt of the payment.

The court also found that Bartholomew had not acted in good faith when he received the payment.

Key Facts:

• An executor paid money to a creditor of the deceased under a mistaken belief that the creditor was entitled to the payment.
• The creditor received the payment and changed their position in reliance on the receipt of the payment.
• The executor discovered that the creditor was not entitled to the payment and demanded that the creditor return the money.
• The creditor refused to return the money, arguing that they were not liable to do so because they had changed their position in reliance on the receipt of the payment.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the creditor was liable to return the money to the executor because the creditor had been unjustly enriched by the receipt of the payment and that they were therefore liable to return the money, even though they had changed their position in reliance on the receipt of the payment.
• The court also found that the creditor had not acted in good faith when they received the payment.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Harman's Estate v Bartholomew 1955 (2) SA 302 (N) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the liability of persons who have received a benefit from another person under a mistaken belief that they were entitled to that benefit.