I'm perfectly happy to have a serious debate about this. But before I do so you really do need to do some proper research. Until then, I think we're back to "ask your dad".
Stop playing hide&seek games and cite some case law.
I've already provided a resource which says
nemo dat quod non habet applies in tracing into mixed funds.
Now it is your turn to cite something that refutes that. Otherwise you are just playing games.
" the original payer will have an equitable proprietary interest in the monies so long as they are traceable into whomsoever's hands they come other than a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice."
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] UKHL 12 (22 May 1996) at p. 26 per Lord Browne Wilkinson
Your turn
Hahaha. You misinterpreted the decision. So now I know you are not an attorney. Rather the decision reaffirms the equitable interest in mixed funds even if the recipient "
had no knowledge at any relevant time that the contract was void".
http://www.ucc.ie/law/restitution/archive/englcases/westdeutsche.htmHe held the money to be recoverable by the bank either as money had and received by the council to the use of the bank, or as money which in equity the bank was entitled to trace into the hands of the council and have repaid out of the council's assets. He decided that the bank's right to restitution at common law arose from the fact that the payment made by the bank to the council was made under a purported contract which, unknown to both parties, was ultra vires the council and so void, no consideration having been given for the making of the payment. The decision by the judge, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal [1994] 1 W.L.R. 938, raised important questions in the law of restitution, which are of great interest to lawyers specialising in this field. Yet it is an extraordinary feature of the present appeal to your Lordships' House that the judge's decision on the substantive right of recovery at common law does not fall for consideration by your Lordships' House. The appeal of the council is confined to one point only - the question of interest.
The breadth of the submission
Although the actual question in issue on the appeal is a narrow one, on the arguments presented it is necessary to consider fundamental principles of trust law. Does the recipient of money under a contract subsequently found to be void for mistake or as being ultra vires hold the moneys received on trust even where he had no knowledge at any relevant time that the contract was void? If he does hold on trust, such trust must arise at the date of receipt or, at the latest, at the date the legal title of the payer is extinguished by mixing moneys in a bank account: in the present case it does not matter at which of those dates the legal title was extinguished. If there is a trust two consequences follow: (a) the recipient will be personally liable, regardless of fault, for any subsequent payment away of the moneys to third parties even though, at the date of such payment, the "trustee" was still ignorant of the existence of any trust: see Burrows, "Swaps and the Friction between Common Law and Equity" [1995] R.L.R. 15; (b) as from the date of the establishment of the trust (i.e. receipt or mixing of the moneys by the "trustee") the original payer will have an equitable proprietary interest in the moneys so long as they are traceable into whomsoever's hands they come other than a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice. Therefore, although in the present case the only question directly in issue is the personal liability of the local authority as a trustee, it is not possible to hold the local authority liable without imposing a trust which, in other cases, will create property rights affecting third parties because moneys received under a void contract are "trust property."