Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 1302/1998 AI generated

Supreme Court held that a financial company must return unjustified payments received from a debt collection agency due to the agency's fault.

Case Number KKO 1302/1998
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court ruled that a financial company is obligated to return funds received from a debt collection agency when those funds are proven unjustified due to the agency's actions. The court found that the debt collection agency had transferred money without proper basis, creating an unjust enrichment situation for the financial company. Consequently, the financial company must restore the unjustified payment to the original creditor to correct the imbalance caused by the agency's error.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Unjust enrichment Act; Contract Act: When a third party causes a financial institution to receive funds unjustifiably, the institution must return the amount to the original creditor.

Keywords

AI generated
unjust enrichment debt collection agency financial institution unjustified payment third party fault restoration of funds civil liability

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Unjust Enrichment Act
Contract Act

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO 1998:49
Supreme Court dismisses claim against factor for third party tax payments due to factor's breach of duty.
AI generated
kko-precedent_1996_128
Supreme Court allows client to claim against factor for partial payment of duties owed to customs authority.
kko-other_1996_4486
Buyer paid installment to finance company after debt transfer; court held buyer remains liable to original creditor.
kko-precedent_1998_49
Supreme Court dismisses claim against factor for third party tax payments due to factor's breach of duty.
kko-precedent_1995_116
Supreme Court allows partial payment defense when debt transfer timing does not match payment receipt.
kko-other_1997_1799
Supreme Court held that a loan repayment made by a bank manager in depression is not a valid discharge of debt.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Huolintaliike oli siirtänyt rahoitusyhtiölle rahoitussopimuksen mukaisesti laskusaatavansa asiakkaaltaan. Kysymys rahoitusyhtiön velvollisuudesta palauttaa asiakkaalle siltä saamansa maksu siltä osalta kuin maksu osoittautui huolintaliikkeen syystä perusteettomaksi. Ks. KKO:1998:49