The word "fact," in the preceding section, is used in the broadest sense. As the word is ordinarily employed by courts and lawyers, however, what may be called "legal facts" are excluded. Questions of law, for example, are always distinguished from questions of fact.2 Recognizing this distinction, misreliance on a right or duty may be said to result from either (1) a mistake of fact, or (2) a mistake of law. Thus, if A pays taxes to B under the belief that the payee is C, the person authorized by law to receive taxes, his mistake is one of fact; but if he pays them to B under the belief that B is authorized by law to receive taxes, whereas C is the person so authorized, his mistake is one of law. Upon principle there is no reason why a quasi contractural obligation should not be recognized in favor of one who has acted under a mistake of law as well as in favor of one who has acted under a mistake of fact. And in some classes of cases, as will be seen later (post, Sec. Sec. 94, 134), no difference is recognized. It is nevertheless a widely accepted rule, based upon supposed considerations of public policy, that "money paid under a mistake of law cannot be recovered." The state of the law on this subject and the grounds for denying relief are examined in another chapter (post, Sec. 35 et seq.).