The client owes a duty when planning on taking worry for the executing their acquisition so as not to mislead the bank or helps forgery
- This has essentially already been recognized that they stand-in a debtor-creditor relationships.
- Where the lender gets places of cash on the buyers. (Here the bank ‘s the borrower of one’s customer and should shell out towards the demand).
- Where loans money so you can the consumer. (Here, the brand new banker is the collector and customers ‘s the borrower).
In Foley lord Cottenham noted that the relationship is debtor-creditor rather than bailment. To this effect, the bank can utilise customer’s money without prior permission of the customer… subject to the condition that it shall be repaid on demand. The court in Joachimson V Swiss Bank Corporation followed the above position… Atkin J added that the bank should only pay on demand during working hours and in the branch of initial payment (technology now makes payment flexible). The debtor-creditor position has also been maintained in the following cases: Osawaye V National Provincial Bank Ltd; Carr V Carr; Sims V Bond, Yusuf V Co-operative Bank Ltd to mention a few.
Little inquire Lord Goddard immediately after asserted that the only person you to has actually money in a bank ‘s the financial alone.
The client owes a duty when deciding to take worry in executing their acquisition in order not to ever mislead the lending company or assists forgery
- Bailment: where in fact the bank allows something (like certification) to possess safe custody.
- Agency: The bank is regarded as an agent where it collects cheques for and on Fort Collins CO escort behalf of its customers-Agbonmabe Bank V CFAO… Where it buys shares, treasury bills and the likes for and on behalf of its customers-Hall V Fuller.
- Fiduciary relationship: In Hedley Byrne V Heller and Partners Co, the court noted that the bank would be regarded as being in a fiduciary relationship where it gives advice to customers with the knowledge that it is being relied upon. A fiduciary duty may also be construed in other deserving circumstances.
- Trusteeship/Executorship: where in fact the bank does someone’s will or is expected in order to provide trust property. This new trusteeship/executorship relationships you may can be found.
According to Lord Atkin in Joachimson V Swiss Bank Corporation; the bank undertakes to receive money and pay on demand while the customer on the other part should take care in executing his orders so as not to mislead the bank or facilitate forgery-.
The consumer owes an obligation for taking care and attention from inside the performing his buy in order to not mislead the bank or facilitate forgery
- To collect deposits: of cash, valuables, cheques and the likes from, for and on behalf of customers-in Dike V ACB ltd, the bank was compelled to collect deposit from the customer being its duty.
- To pay on demand and honour customer’s cheques: Generally, a bank should not dishonour its customer’s cheque or demand (Conditions for a dishonour shall be discussed later). A wrongful dishonour ount to a breach of the contractual relationship-s entitling the customer to damages. In Roline V Steward, the court held that damages is presumed where the customer is a trader. In Ejimofor V UBN however, the court held that delay in payment without more would not amount to wrongful dishonour. In this case, the customer payee got impatient and left after waiting for several hours in the bank. The court held that the delay by the bank does not necessarily amount to a dishonour.
The duty to pay on demand does not prevent the bank from making enquiries and exercising due care and skill before making the payment-Karak Rubber co V Burden and Others.
The consumer owes an obligation for taking proper care within the carrying out his purchase so as not to ever mislead the lending company otherwise assists forgery
- Responsibility off privacy: to relieve the user’s information and you will factors because personal and you will purely confidential. The right out-of confidentiality are preserved by the Point 37 of one’s 1999 composition subject to particular judge justifications.