Banking and Finance Law
Joint account holders, case: Arden v Bank of New South Wales (1956) VLR 569 Combination of account, the bank’s right to combine accounts is dependant on the accounts being the same or closely similar. The right to combine accounts without express agreement: accounts must be held by customer in the same capacity, must not be an agreement or course of dealing with the customer which has negated the bank’s right to combine accounts, customer’s indebtedness must have been incurred to the bank as an banker and not in relation to other business carried on by the bank eg travel business.
The main case of this rule is: Garnett v McKewan 1872. Knowing Receipt: Case: Thomson v Clydesdale Bank Ltd (1893) AC 282 APPLICATION Fantastic Landscapes is a customer of the Red Bank because it has accounts in this bank which are overdraft account with has a borrowing limit of $100000 accepted by 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 between Red Bank and Fantastic Landscapes.
The general terms and conditions included the following clause 12: upon receipt of each monthly overdraft account statement, the account holder shall read the statement and notify the bank of any errors contained in the statement within 15 days. Failure to notify the bank of any errors within that time will be treated as a breach of contract by the account holder entitling the bank to its remedies at law. Applying to the bank’s duty of confidentiality, the Red Bank recorded transactions between 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 of 3 months are unusual drawn on Fantastic Landscapes’ overdraft account. When according 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, applying to the duty of customer in section 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 any errors contained in the statement within 15 days.
Therefore, Ben or Fantastic Landscapes could not claim back $50000. When apply to combination of account, the Fantastic Landscapes has won in this lawsuit. The Red Bank has combined overdraft account and Account No 2 without any notice because they hear 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 pay $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 care about how Minnie paid off her debt because Minnie did not withdraw money in the trust account.
In addition, 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.