Banking_and_finance_law_notes - Banker Customer...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Banker Customer Relationship Debtor/creditor o Foley v. Hill (fiduciary?) Court: ‘Money when paid into a B. ceases all together to be the money of the customer… it is then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited to him when he is asked for it.’ Ownership: o Balmoral Supermarket v. Bank of New Zealand Cash ‘never in full legal possession of the money in the bank to the exclusion of (the cu).’ K’ual duties: receive money/accept payment/collect cheques; repay on demand; accurate acct info; obey mandate; take care; confidentiality Duty of confidentiality o Tournier v. National Provincial Bank and Union Bank of England Overdrawn account, told T. employer payments to bookmaker, employer refused extend T K Court: exceptions 1. Compulsion by law 2. Public duty 3. Banks interests 4. Express/implied consent Duty extends to info derived from the account. Doesn’t end when account closed DOC implied by K. includes any info obtained in the course of the b/cu relationship o Compulsion by law jurisdiction of account - Westpac Banking Corp o Implied consent not just b/c common practice – Turner v. Royal B. of Scotland B. common practice answering enquiries by other B. Court: express consent presents no prob To be implied must ensure business efficacy Many Cu ignorant of practice B. Unilaterally dispensed with cu consent Cu inactivity didn’t equal consent o Sunderland v. Barclays Bank – wife handing phone to husband = implied consent Court: if break of K, damages only nominal b/c P. suffered little damage o Disclosure to related companies: Bank of Tokyo v. Konoon Economically same entity – ‘but we are concerned not with economics but with law. The distinction between the two is in law fundamental and cannot here be abridged.’ o Liability Remoteness of damage – Jackson v. Royal Bank of Scotland Dog chews from Thailand Damages calculated as loss of future profit – 4 years – after that too remote
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Irrelevant cu could’ve found out pricing without B. Reasonably foreseeable – Hadley v. Baxendale – crankshaft delivery delay – liability despite unaware o Privacy Act (Cth) 1988 – ss. 21(A) damages for hurt feelings/humiliation National privacy principles: collection, use and disclosure; data quality; data security; openness; access and correction; identifies; anonymity; transborder data flows; sensitive info o Australian Code of Banking Practice CL21 – DOC and exceptions Repayment on demand o Joachiminson v. Swiss Bank Corp Legal issue: whether demand upon a banker is necessary before he comes under an obligation to pay his cu the amount standing to the credit of his current account Court: duty to repay is implied term of K, money not held in trust for Cu, but borrowed with promise to repay (Foley v. Hill applied) Cu must give clear instructions how money to be repaid,
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/08/2011 for the course LAW 101 taught by Professor Jan during the Three '11 term at Monash.

Page1 / 14

Banking_and_finance_law_notes - Banker Customer...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online