Moses v.

Macferlan:
Facts: Jacob issued four promissory notes to Moses. Moses endorsed it to
Macferlan,
excluding, by a written agreement, his personal liability on the endorsement. Even
so Macferlan sued Moses on the endorsement and he was liable despite the
agreement. Moses was, therefore, compelled to discharge a liability which he had
excluded and, therefore, sued to recover his money from Macferlan. He was
allowed to recover.
Lord Mansfield said much money can not be recovered where the person to whom
it is given can “retain it with a safe conscience.” The gist of this kind of action is
that the defendant, upon the circumstances of the case, is obliged by ties of
natural justice and equity to refund the money.

Hazari Lal vs. Naurang Lal

• In this case, H was the lease-holder of land that belonged to N who had not paid
any land revenue for many years The state had served a notice to N that unless the
arrears of the revenue were paid by a certain date, the land would be auctioned to
realise the arrears. According to the legislation, H's lease would terminate with the
sale of the land. H, therefore, paid the revenue arrears and later claimed the same
fromN.
The court held that N was liable to pay H the amount he had paid to clear the
arrears.

State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal & Sons –

The plaintiff, on the request of an officer of the State of West Bengal, constructed a
kutcha road, guardroom, office, kitchen, room for clerks and storage sheds for the
use of the Civil Supplies Department of the Government. The contract had been
concluded in accordance with the requirements of Section 175(3) of the
Government of India Act, 1935 (now Article 299 of the Constitution of India). The
contractor was thus forced to try his luck with the State under Section 70, and it
proved to be better than that of the State but at the cost of fighting up to the
Supreme Court for a sum of Rs.19325.
The State was held liable because instead of rejecting the services it had enjoyed
the benefits of them. The argument that the contract in question was not made in
accordance with the requirements of the Constitution was got over by holding that
those requirements apply only to contractual obligations and not those arising
under quasi-contract. The Court also laid down that the position of the State
cannot be compared with that of a minor. “The minor is excluded from the
operation of Section 70 for the reason that his case has been specifically provided
for by Section 68. What Section 70 prevents is unjust enrichment and it applies as
much to corporations and Government as to individuals..... Besides, in the case of a
minor, even the voluntary acceptance of the benefit of the work done or thing
delivered, which is the foundation of the claim under Section 70, would not be
present and so, on principle, Section 70 cannot be invoked against a minor.”

Hollins Vs. Fowler

• H picked up a diamond from the floor of F's shop and handed over to F to keep it
till the owner is found.
Inspite of best efforts the true owner could not be reached. After some time H
tendered to F the lawful expenses incurred by him for finding the true owner and
asked him (F) to hand over the diamond to him(H).
F refused.
It was held that F must return the diamond to H as H was entitled to retain it
against the whole world except the true owner.

Sales Tax Officer v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukund Lal Saraf

A certain amount of sales tax was paid by a firm under the U.P. Sales Tax law on its
forward transactions and subsequent to the payment the Allahabad High Court
ruled the levy of sales tax on such transactions to be ultra vires.
The firm was allowed to recover back the tax. “The section in terms does not make
any distinction between a mistake of law or a mistake of fact. The term ‘mistake’
has been used without any qualification or limitation whatever.....”