{"title":"金钱的各种发展都很重要","authors":"J. Baker","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter shows how the action of assumpsit for money, usually in the fictional form known as indebitatus assumpsit, was extended in the seventeenth century to cover situations beyond the reach of the old action of debt: for instance, actions on bills of exchange, actions for sums of money not quantified at the time of contracting (quantum meruit and quantum valebant), and restitutionary actions for money received to the plaintiff’s use. The last category overlapped with the action of account, but unlike account could be used against wrongdoers. Excessive use of ‘money had and received’ to replace the usual remedies in contract and tort was resisted, with only partial success, by Chief Justice Holt.","PeriodicalId":197105,"journal":{"name":"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Various developments of the money counts\",\"authors\":\"J. Baker\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter shows how the action of assumpsit for money, usually in the fictional form known as indebitatus assumpsit, was extended in the seventeenth century to cover situations beyond the reach of the old action of debt: for instance, actions on bills of exchange, actions for sums of money not quantified at the time of contracting (quantum meruit and quantum valebant), and restitutionary actions for money received to the plaintiff’s use. The last category overlapped with the action of account, but unlike account could be used against wrongdoers. Excessive use of ‘money had and received’ to replace the usual remedies in contract and tort was resisted, with only partial success, by Chief Justice Holt.\",\"PeriodicalId\":197105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0018\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本章展示了为金钱而假设的诉讼,通常以一种虚构的形式被称为不可抵赖性假设,如何在17世纪扩展到涵盖旧的债务诉讼所不能涵盖的情况:例如,汇票诉讼,在合同时未量化的金钱诉讼(量子赏金和量子价值),以及为收到的原告使用的金钱而采取的赔偿诉讼。最后一类与记帐行为重叠,但与记帐不同的是,它可以用来对付违法者。首席大法官霍尔特(Holt)反对过度使用“已获款项”(money had and received)来代替合同和侵权行为中的常规救济,但只取得了部分成功。
This chapter shows how the action of assumpsit for money, usually in the fictional form known as indebitatus assumpsit, was extended in the seventeenth century to cover situations beyond the reach of the old action of debt: for instance, actions on bills of exchange, actions for sums of money not quantified at the time of contracting (quantum meruit and quantum valebant), and restitutionary actions for money received to the plaintiff’s use. The last category overlapped with the action of account, but unlike account could be used against wrongdoers. Excessive use of ‘money had and received’ to replace the usual remedies in contract and tort was resisted, with only partial success, by Chief Justice Holt.