Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2004

Abstract

Suppose A has a claim against B. B has a claim over against C. B, however, is insolvent and has not actually paid A. B's only asset is, in fact, B v C. To what extent can C claim that B v C is valueless - that B was not damaged because B was too broke to pay A?

This paper argues that the fundamental legal distinction between indemnity and liability is beginning to dissolve, because B can always pay A (and thereby give value to B v C) by borrowing the amount B owes and using B v C as collateral for the loan. This very possibility tends to render the distinction between indemnity and liability obsolete.

Publication Title

Cardozo Law Review

First Page

1951

Volume

25

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS