ABSTRACT
This explains why a claimant who pre-pays for goods under a contract later terminated, for example, by frustration, recovers his money: the fact that for a time, he had the benefit of the payee’s contractual obligation is irrelevant.35 Conversely, it is suggested that a claimant who pays for and receives goods under a contract which, unknown to him, is unenforceable has no claim to get his money back. What he paid for was the goods themselves, not the promise to provide them, and those goods he has now got.
