> But, it's important to also point out how bizzare this exception is, how did this even get included as the one and only exception? It is question how exactly

> But, it's important to also point out how bizzare this exception is, how did this even get included as the one and only exception? It is question how exactly the law is written. I would not bet on legal details to be exactly right in non-law-expert journal. Here, a receiver or an errorneous wire transfer is not required to send them back based on the fact that wire transfer was unintentional on the sender side, but is required send them back based on the fact that the receiver do not have valid claim to that money. If the law in NY has been formulated this way, the 'bizarre exception' would be just natural result of the law and not explicit exception. If a debtor unintentionally sends money to the creditor while the debt is due, then creditor has valid and legal claim on that money.