3 ms·
This judge's ruling seems egregiously wrong to me. In general the law does not follow "finder's keepers" rules. I know this case happened in the UK, but this i
by hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
This judge's ruling seems egregiously wrong to me. In general the law does not follow "finder's keepers" rules.
I know this case happened in the UK, but this is remarkably analogous to the case in the US where Citibank, due to a clerical error, accidentally wired $500 million to Revlon bondholders. An appeals court in the US said that money needed to be repaid, https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/second-circuit-reverses-ruling-500-million-wire-transfer-paying-off-revlon-loan-returned https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/second....
- ralferoo 3y agoHow is it egregiously wrong? The couple were getting a divorce anyway, the woman just wants the divorce cancelled so they can continue "negotiations" on the terms. But in terms of law, her lawyers acting on her authority requested the divorce, the other party agreed and the divorce was finalised. The due process was followed. What should happen next is that the woman sues her lawyers for negligence, demanding compensation to the tune of the amount that she failed to negotiate in the divorce.
- colonwqbang 3y agoMr Williams doesn't wish to be married to Mrs Williams anymore. If tearing up the divorce decree the judge would be forcibly re-marrying Mr and Mrs, against his wishes. I think the decision made by the judge is the only reasonable one. If Mrs lost money due to the mistake, her recourse is to sue her incompetent lawyer.