Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message       Back to index       Next message ==>
Sender:
Steve Hedley
Date:
Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:50:08 +0100
Re:
Bank overcharging customers

 

At 15:12 05/08/98 +0100, Eoin O' Dell wrote:

Last March, RTE (the national tv and radio station) were about to break the story that various branches of the National Irish Bank had imposed excess charges and fees on customer bank accounts. NIB sued RTE for breach of confidence, taking the case all the way to the Supreme Court (see NIB v RTE (Supreme Court, unreported, 20 March 1998)) which ruled that the proposed disclosure was in the public interest. RTE then broadcast a series of allegations that NIB The bank commissioned a consultancy, Arthur Andersen, to undertake an investigation of the matter. At a press conference yesterday, the bank published that report, and its chief executive, Mr Mr Grahame Savage, undertook to return the excess charges and fees, plus interest.

(snip)

My question is this; given that the bank took RTE to the Supreme Court in an effort to prevent the broadcast of the story, they might equally have decided not to return the money at all, or to return it without interest; if they had done so, and a customer of the bank had decided to sue for the return of the money plus interest, would that have been an action for restitution of an unjust enrichment, and if so, what would the ground for restitution (the unjust factor) have been ?

Presumably the bank's treatment of its customers was a breach of its contracts with them.

Actions to recover the customers' lost money are therefore actions for breach of contract, or perhaps even (depending on the circumstances) actions for debts based on the contracts, if that is different.

No doubt failing to pay your debts enriches you, but to define 'unjust enrichment' so broadly means that *all* civil liabilities would be based on unjust enrichment.

 

Steve Hedley


<== Previous message       Back to index       Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !