Banker and customer relationship
0.0 / 5
- Created by: lawliv
- Created on: 29-05-17 16:07
Cash and cheques were paid into an overdrawn account for the specified agreed purpose of paying a cheque. Cheque was subsequently wrongfully dishonoured. Breach of duty to make payment.
Fleming v Bank of England
1 of 48
The customer may be estopped from saying that the bank acted without a mandate if it is obvious that the customer knew of the forgeries for some time.
Greenwood v Martins Bank
2 of 48
The banker and customer relationship is a single contract but with several obligations flowing from it.
Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corp
3 of 48
Customer made a deposit of £40 at 11am. At 3pm a cheque was dishonoured as the £40 had not yet been entered onto the ledger. Breach of duty to make payements.
Marzetti v Williams
4 of 48
The bank can be liable in both tort and contract.
Barclays Bank v Quincecare
5 of 48
It is a basic obligation that the bank will honour, on presentation, a cheque provided that there is a sufficient balance or agreed overdraft.
Barclays Bank v Simms and Cooke
6 of 48
The bank exceeded its mandate when it honoured a cheque signed by one director when the mandate required two signatures.
Ligget v Barclays Bank
7 of 48
Guidelines for negligence: (1)question should be considered separately for each cheque;(2)test for negligence is whether the transaction should have aroused suspicion and caused to make inquiries:(3)negligence should be proximate cause of loss
Morison v London County and Westminster Bank
8 of 48
The bank honoured a cheque bearing one signature when the mandate required two. The sole signatory had actual authority from the plaintiff's board of directors so the bank had actual authority.
London International Trust v Barclays Bank
9 of 48
Where the customer gives erroneous or ambiguous instructions capable of several interpretations, the bank will not be liable if it adopts a reasonable interpretation.
Westminster Bank v Hilton
10 of 48
Customer gave an instruction to countermand a cheque with details of the cheque number and payee, but not the account no. The clerk made a note against one account, but not the other. Cheque paid. Countermand was effective, breach of duty.
Reade v RBS
11 of 48
If the details set out in the countermand instruction are sufficient to identify the cheque, the bank comes under a duty to conform and stop the cheque, even if notice is inadequate or defective in one detail.
Remfor Industries v Bank of Montreal
12 of 48
Countermand was ineffective when given over the phone to an employee who lacked authority to deal with such instructions, and who thought the instruction would be later confirmed in writing.
Commonwealth Trading Bank v Reno Auto Sales
13 of 48
Unless the customer is able to show that he has sustained loss, he is only entitled to nominal damages, i.e. one shilling.
Evans v London and Provincial Bank
14 of 48
In the context of a business customer, there is a presumption in the favour of the customer that he will suffer loss of reputation.
Rolin v Steward
15 of 48
Should no longer be a distinction between business customer and general customer. Should be presumed that wrongful dishonour could cause damage to anyone's reputation.
Kphoraror v Woolwich Building Society
16 of 48
The words 'present again were both legally capable of having a defamatory meaning and did in fact convey such a meaning.
Baker v Australia and New Zealand Bank
17 of 48
'Refer to drawer' was capable of a defamatory meaning.
Pyke v Hiberian Bank
18 of 48
The words 'frozen account' and 'refer to drawer' on a cheque were capable of being highly defamatory and tantamount to saying that the plaintiff had gone into liquidation or been locked up.
Bumpitra-Commerce Bank v Top-A Plastic
19 of 48
The words 'reason not stated' on the back of the cheque were not proven to naturally be understood as conveying a defamatory meaning. Were equally capable of an innocent meaning.
Frost v London Joint Stock Bank
20 of 48
Crediting the customer's account with the amount of an uncleared cheque gives the customer the right to draw on that account.
Capital and Counties Bank v Gordon
21 of 48
Where the customer acts, in good faith, on an erroneous entry and alters hs position accordingly, the bank is estopped from having the error rectified.
Holland v Manchester and Liverpool District Banking
22 of 48
Military office paid erroneously for 5 years. The erroneous entries amount to representations. Would be prejudicial to the customer to allow the bank to recover the amounts of mistaken payments.
Skyring v Greenwood
23 of 48
Customer did not discover erroneous credit until the bank reversed it. Bank is only estopped from rectifying where the customer honestly believes the statements are correct and acts accordingly.
British and North European Bank v Zalzstein
24 of 48
Customer is not entitled to take advantage of the bank's mistake where he knows, or from the facts ought to realise, the amount appearing in his account is a mistake.
United Overseas Bank v Jiwani
25 of 48
Bank will not, in normal circumstances, be under a duty to enquire whether the person drawing cheques is authorised. Could not be held liable unless could be shown to be in breach of the contractual duty of care.
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale
26 of 48
The banker and customer relationship does not impose a duty on the bank to keep the customer informed of new banking products. Merely adopting this policy does not impose an enforceable duty.
Sureya & Douglas v Midland Bank
27 of 48
To place the bank under a duty of care to the borrower regarding the viability of a business transaction, the borrower must make it clear to the bank that its advice is being sought.
Lloyds Bank v Cobb
28 of 48
A borrower must not rely on the fact that a lender has chosen to lend him money as evidence that the lender thinks that this is sound.
National Commercial Bank v Jew
29 of 48
Bank cannot be expected to do something without a fee, where the customer knew that others were willing to provide such a service but for a fee only.
McEvoy v ANZ Banking Group
30 of 48
Bank advertised a 'tailor made' financial advisory service. Advised couple to buy a property, lost money in the property slump. Breached duty of care in tort and contract.
Verity & Spindler v Lloyds Bank
31 of 48
In absence of a written agreement or 'statutory impediment', the bank must give reasonable notice to terminate the banker and customer relationship.
National Commercial Bank of Jamacia v Clint Corp
32 of 48
The customer owes a duty of care to check the accuracy of bank statements regularly and notify the bank of any discrepancy.
Tai Hing Cotton Mill v Lill Chong Hing Bank
33 of 48
Clerk presented a cheque for £2 with blank spaces before and after and blank where value written in words. Cheque was signed, then filled out for £120. Customer is bound to 'take usual and reasonable precautions to prevent forgery'.
London Joint Stock Bank v Macmillan
34 of 48
'y' inserted after the word 'eight' is the usual way of filling up blanks and no man in the City would take notice of 'eight' not being close to the next word.
Societe Generale v Metropolitan Bank
35 of 48
Branch manager made several enquiries about fraudulent cheques and was assured they were genuine. Could not subsequently assert fraudulent nature and insist account be recredited.
Brown v Westminster Bank
36 of 48
Husband brought an action to recover amount of cheques forged by his wife. Estopped from relying on the forgeries as his failure to inform the bank denied the bank its right to seek a remedy against his wife.
Greenwood v Martins Bank
37 of 48
Bank has a duty of secrecy, but this is subject to, and overridden by, the duty to comply with the law.
Parry Jones v Law Society
38 of 48
Three limitations to the duty of confidentiality. (1)only applies where information is confidential; (2)doesnt apply to useless infomration nor trivia; (3)public interest that confidences should be preserved may be outweighed by other public interest
AG v Guardian Newspapers
39 of 48
Bank inadvertently disclosed it's customer's mark up, leading to loss of a line of business. Bank ordered to pay for the lost profit that the customer could prove had resulted.
Jackson v RBS
40 of 48
Bank phones plaintiff's employers, told them he was overdrawn and had dealings with bookmakers. Employer subsequently failed to renew employment contract. Bank guilty of breach of confidentiality, damages awarded.
Tourner v National Provincial and Union Bank of England
41 of 48
Qualifications to confidentiality duty: (1) disclosure under compulsion of law; (2) duty to the public to disclose; (3) in the interests of the bank to disclose; and (4) disclosure is made by express or implied consent of customer.
Tourner v National Provincial and Union Bank of England
42 of 48
Bank has a duty of confidentiality in relation to information acquired in character of his banker.
Barclays Bank v Taylor
43 of 48
Personal data must be used fairly and lawfully; for specific purposes for which it was obtained; be adequate and relevant; not be excessive; be accurate and up to date.
section 1, Data Protection Act 1998
44 of 48
Court of judge may order a party to inspect and take copies of entries in any bankers' books.
section 7, Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879
45 of 48
Disclosure orders were granted to the police when a company employee was accused of misappropriating company funds.
Williams v Summerfield
46 of 48
Danger to the state or public duty may supersede the duty of confidentiality.
Weld-Blundell v Stephens
47 of 48
Bank was justified in disclosing confidential information to the customer's husband where the bank's reputation was clearly under threat. Wife had given her implied consent to the disclosure by allowing her husband to intervene on her behalf.
Sunderland v Barclays Bank
48 of 48
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
The customer may be estopped from saying that the bank acted without a mandate if it is obvious that the customer knew of the forgeries for some time.
Back
Greenwood v Martins Bank
Card 3
Front
The banker and customer relationship is a single contract but with several obligations flowing from it.
Back
Card 4
Front
Customer made a deposit of £40 at 11am. At 3pm a cheque was dishonoured as the £40 had not yet been entered onto the ledger. Breach of duty to make payements.
Back
Card 5
Front
The bank can be liable in both tort and contract.
Back
Similar Law resources:
0.0 / 5
5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
Comments
Report