Banking and Finance Law Essay Example for Free

Banking and Finance Law EssayJoint number toters, causal agent Arden v Bank of smart South Wales (1956) VLR 569 Combination of discover, the edges right to commix accounts is dependant on the accounts being the selfsame(prenominal) or closely similar. The right to combine accounts without express agreement accounts must be held by client in the same capacity, must not be an agreement or course of dealing with the node which has negated the banks right to combine accounts, customers indebtedness must gift been incurred to the bank as an banker and not in relation to other business carried on by the bank eg depart business. The main reason of this rule is Garnett v McKewan 1872. Knowing Receipt Case Thomson v Clydesdale Bank Ltd (1893) AC 282 APPLICATION strange Landscapes is a customer of the ablaze(p) Bank because it has accounts in this bank which are overdraft account with has a borrowing limit of $100000 accepted by cherry-red Bank and another account has $20000 (Account No 2) Applying to the content of the contact, Fantastic Landscapes has signed an agreement form that is an express terms made amongst departure Bank and Fantastic Landscapes.The customary terms and conditions included the following clause 12 upon recognise of each monthly overdraft account statement, the account holder shall read the statement and notify the bank of both errors contained in the statement within 15 days. Failure to notify the bank of each errors within that prison term will be treated as a breach of contract by the account holder entitling the bank to its remedies at law. Applying to the banks trade of confidentiality, the Red Bank recorded transactions surrounded by it and its customer (Fantastic Landscapes) and reported to its customer every 15 days as written in the general term.However, Red Bank did not complete its duty to question valid mandate because the cheques drawn by Minnie (one of the director of Fantastic Landscapes) within a period o f 3 months are unusual drawn on Fantastic Landscapes overdraft account. When gibe to joint account holders, Ben actually is an innocent joint account holder, so he has a right to sue the Red Bank for the breach of contract. However, take holding to the duty of customer in surgical incision duty to organize business, following cases Lewes Sanitary Steam Laundry Co Ltd v Barclay Co Ltd (1906) 95 LT 444 and (6. 1) National Bank of New Zealand Ltd v Walpole and Patterson Ltd (1975) 2NZLR 7. The Red bank has an absolute advantage in this case because of the express term written in the contract Another director of Fantastic Landscapes, Ben has failed when sue Red Bank to recredit account which Minnie has stolen because he did not check overdraft account during 3 months, and in the contract with Red Bank has asked he to read and notify the bank of all errors contained in the statement within 15 days.Therefore, Ben or Fantastic Landscapes could not claim back $50000. When apply to combin ation of account, the Fantastic Landscapes has win in this lawsuit. The Red Bank has combined overdraft account and Account No 2 without any identity card because they get word that this company has just lot a large landscaping contract and not working any more. Moreover, Red Bank has agreed Fantastic Landscapes to borrow maximum $100000, so they can not combine account without any notice to this company even though its overdraft account has reached to $100000.Therefore, Red Bank has to grant $10000 penalty fee for Fantastic Landscapes to the finance company. According to duty of the banker, the BLB (Big Lender Bank) does not have any duty to Fantastic Landscapes because in this case, its customer Minnie just is its client. Therefore, BLB do not have any duty to her company although she is a director in that company and she has committed fraud. Moreover, BLB do not sustainment about how Minnie paid off her debt because Minnie did not withdraw money in the trust account.In addit ion, according to Thomson v Clydesdale Bank Ltd (1893) AC 282. BLB does not need to care about its customer detail particularly. Hence, the chances for Fantastic Landscapes win in this case in not to high than the case it won before when against Red Bank to reclaim $10000 penalty fee for finance company. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Fantastic Landscapes has won in the case against Red Bank for compensation for $10000 penalty fee when they applied their case to combination of account.They won because Red Bank has committed the rule when combine two accounts without any notice to its customer. On the other hand, although the main fault belong to Minnie, the Fantastic Landscapes has failed in the case to recredit, its account when apply express term between it and the Red Bank. After all, the BLB do not have any duty to Fantastic Landscapes for compensation because when apply knowing receipt rule via Thomson case.