If the plaintiffs establish that they were not in pari delicto or that there was practical compulsion (and I have held that they were not in pari delicto), does it follow that they are automatically entitled to the return of their money? I think the answer is no. The action for money had and received is not an action on a contract or a notional contract. According to Storthoaks v. Mobil Oil Can. Ltd., 1975 CanLII 156 (SCC), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 147, [1975] 4 W.W.R. 591, 55 D.L.R. (3d) 1, 5 N.R. 23, it is an action for return of money which the defendant has received but which the law says it would be unjust for him to keep.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.