The many manifestations of money had and received have come to be treated as a single claim, to reverse a defective transfer of value. I show here that this tendency towards unification has led us to exaggerate the role of value, thus obscuring the normative role played by the notion of a ‘transfer’ from claimant to defendant. I argue that ‘transfer’ labels the legal mechanism through which the parties’ balance sheet positions are affected. For cases that involve physical cash, the legal mechanism properly associated with a claim in unjust enrichment is a title transfer. For cases that involve bank money, the legal mechanism is a bank transfer, effected by participating banks as agents for payor and payee. I argue that we should welcome the move in Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Commissioners towards a transactional test, but that we must draw and defend narrow parameters for it.

中文翻译：

---

现代金钱的拥有和接受

已经和收到的货币的多种表现形式已被视为单一索赔，以扭转有缺陷的价值转移。我在这里表明，这种统一的趋势导致我们夸大了价值的作用，从而模糊了从原告到被告的“转移”概念所发挥的规范作用。我认为“转移”标记了各方资产负债表头寸受到影响的法律机制。对于涉及实物现金的案件，与不当得利索赔适当相关的法律机制是所有权转让。对于涉及银行资金的案件，法律机制是银行转账，由参与银行作为付款人和收款人的代理人进行。我认为我们应该欢迎投资信托公司诉税务和海关专员案中的交易测试，