Equitable Assigments of Debt FAO: Font22 & TheVan esp.

hullaballoo

Hey, I'm finding it hard to get my head around this concept, in particular the case Gorringe v Irwell India Rubber & Gutta Percha Works. In the notes, I have a very sketchy and hard-to-read version of the events, such that:
1. C owed money to A, and A owed money to B.
2. A indicated to B that it held £425, due to A from C, on B's behalf. [Wtf?]
3. C only received notice from B of 2. after A had commenced liquidation.

Issue:Had an equitable assignment come into being (as between A and ?

What in good God is supposed to be going on in this case? I'm struggling with 2. and what it means.

Thanks for any help in advance.

andy1249

I'll hazard a guess , A owes B money , instead of paying directly A is trying to pass the responsibility for the Debt to C ( who owes A money ) . I other words A is trying to transfer his debt to C .

The question is , is this legal , given the notice to C after liquidation.

hullaballoo

Ok, so who's the factor?

TheVan

Hull that is a very complicated case! it took me a while to figure it out....ill explain it when I return to Dublin! Took me a while....reading the case actually helps and so does the book....which i suspect you don't have on ya! Between myself and Font22 we'll save ya!

hullaballoo

TheVan wrote:

reading the case actually helps and so does the book....which i suspect you don't have on ya!

TheVan knows me freakishly well.

Right, cheers for that. I reckon I'll peruse the case in due course.

besty

hullaballoo wrote:

TheVan knows me freakishly well.

Right, cheers for that. I reckon I'll peruse the case in due course.

Peruse, I like that.