I have already dealt with the question as to whether the letter of the defendant, accepting to pay on condition that original letter of employment is provided, is acknowledgment in terms of section 30 so as to cause fresh cause of action to accrue. It is not. The complex part of the submission of counsel for the plaintiff is the general question as to when in law, acknowledgment gives rise to liability. In English common law which is applicable in Solomon Islands, acknowledgment generally founds liability deriving from the principle of law described as money had and received to the use of the plaintiff. A suit to claim under that principle is a suit for restitution of that money.
Some writers describe it as obligation in quasi contract.
To prove acknowledgment in the principle of money had and received to the use of the plaintiff, it must be shown that a third person has given instruction to defendant, the holder of the money, to pay to the plaintiff, the transferee, and the holder has accepted the instruction and promised the transferee that he would pay. The money of course would be money that belonged to the third person giving instruction or money that has accrued or may accrue to him in the hands of the holder, the defendant, It is therefore not a claim by the plaintiff based on contract as strictly speaking, the plaintiff is not privy to the contract and has given no consideration. That is why it is often referred to as obligation in quasi contract. The plaintiff's case before court now, does not prove any of the facts required for liability for money had and received to the use of the transferee. There is no proof that the defendant holds money of or accruing to the original employer, whether that be Sollumber Limited or Rantex Limited nor that the employer instructed payment to the plaintiff, would be transferee, and the defendant has promised to so pay.