I have a financial question that I'm ashamed to even ask, but it really matters to me.

Last week I had a very drunken evening, and lent my friend £3,000, which I don't remember doing. 

Apparently when we were in the pub he said he needed money to build his mum a wheelchair ramp for her home, and as I was so inebriated I transferred him the money there and then. I only realised when I checked my bank balance the next day.

The problem is that money is most of my cash savings, and I really need it back. He is currently refusing, saying I gave him the money fair and square and he'd already told his mum the good news.

Legally, do I have a leg to stand on here?

Sam Barker of This is Money replies: This question reminds me of the biblical adage that alcohol can be a mocker. You are certainly in a sticky situation, both legally and ethically too.

One side of the argument is that you gave the money away willingly, while the other says you were too inebriated to make a logical decision at the time, so the donation shouldn't count.

Complicating that situation further is the fact that your friend, understandably, has no desire to give the money back, as he has it earmarked for a very noble cause.

The first course of action would be to try again to convince your friend that you need the money back, perhaps letting him keep some of it in order to smooth things over.

If that doesn't work, you end up relying on the law around what constitutes giving a gift.

English law says a valid gift requires three things:

• The voluntary intention of the donor to give the gift to the receiver
• The delivery of the gift to the receiver
• The acceptance of the gift by the receiver

Clearly your friend has been delivered the money and accepted it, so the question is whether it was your voluntary intention to give that money.

Legally, you are on shaky ground. You would say you did not give the money voluntarily, as you were drunk at the time, but technically you did give the money freely and without duress.

I spoke to a lawyer, Keystone Law's litigation partner Kelly Tinkler, to get to the bottom of the problem.

The legal situation is double-sided 

In short, you may have a case if you are a) happy to take the legal route against a friend and b) have some sort of proof you were drunk at the time.

Tinkler said: 'In the absence of some other vitiating factor, such as duress, the donor would only be able to reclaim the money if they could show that there was no intention to make a gift, either as a matter of fact, or because they were intoxicated to the point that they lacked mental capacity to do so.

'Here the donor has a considerable evidential problem. They say they cannot remember making the payment. In the absence of evidence from a third party, the dispute may well come down to the donor's lack of evidence against what is said by the receiver of the gift.'

In other words, without proof, perhaps in the form of people willing to say that you were indeed drunk, you may not have a leg to stand on when it comes to getting your money back.

The area of contract law shows examples where being drunk worked for and against people when making financial decisions.

Tinkler added: 'In a case in 2017, entrepreneur Mike Ashley was alleged to have made a contract to provide a £15million bonus to a contractor, in the context of drinks at a bar.

'The judge concluded that while the intoxication was not definitive in this case, the informal setting, and the jocular nature of the conversation meant that it was unlikely that the parties intended to create a contract. He also noted that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss bonus arrangements.

'In contrast, in 2023 a high-stakes gambler, Lester Hui, was held liable for £590,000 losses in Aspinall's casino.

'When his losses reached £500,000, he requested a £300,000 extension to his line of credit and was granted £100,000.

'There it was held that, despite his intoxication, there was an intention to create a contract, given he had lost £400,000 on previous occasions and, rather extraordinarily, drove his Bentley home.'

It may be worth some serious soul searching whether this £3,000 is more important to you than your friendship.