See DiSilvestro v. United States, 405 F.2d 150, 155 (2d Cir. 1968) ("It is, of course, well established that parties receiving monies from the Government under a mistake of fact or law are liable ex aequo et bono to refund them, and that no specific statutory authorization upon which to base a claimed right of set-off or an affirmative action for the recovery of these monies is necessary."). See also Grand Trunk W. Ry. Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 112, 120-121, 40 S. Ct. 309, 64 L. Ed. 484 (1920); Wisc. Cent. R.R. v. United States, 164 U.S. 190 (1896); American Financial Associates, Lt. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 761 (1984), aff'd, 755 F.2d 912 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 145 Ct. Cl. 496, 172 F. Supp. 268, 270 (1959). This court's jurisdiction over defendant's counterclaim is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. ยง 2508:
Waxman v.United States, 112 F. Supp. 570, 588 (Ct.Cl. 1953). Courts have held the financial institution exception must be strictly construed. SeeAmerican Fin. Assoc., Ltd v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 761, 768 (1984), aff'd, 755 F.2d 912 (Fed. Cir. 1985); accordUnited California Discount Corp., 19 Cl. Ct. at 507; Trust Co.Bank of Middle Georgia, N.A. v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 710, 711-12 (1992). Thus, a contractor must meet the requirements of these sections in order to gain the benefit of the exception.