There is no real analogy between the facts of those cases and the facts of this one. In Kasumu, the issue was whether a moneylender should be required to give back security taken in support of a loan, the loan contract being unenforceable. He contended that he should be required to restore the property only upon the borrower paying the amount advanced. That, of course, would simply have amounted to an indirect enforcement of the unenforceable contract. So the moneylender was ordered to return the security without compensation. The issue in Barclay v. Propsect Mtge. was essentially the same.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.