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:
Allan Axelrod
Date:
Wed, 5 Aug 1998 14:44:43 -0400
Re:
Bank overcharging customers

 

[snip from odell]

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 ?

[hedley continues] 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.

a customer maintains a credit with a bank:

the credit represents the amount of the bank's express or implied obligation to pay money to the customer [against check or otherwise] the customer agrees that the bank can charge against the credit in various determinable future amounts

the customer makes demand on the bank---via check or otherwise--for the amount of his balance properly determined as per contract---dishonor of the demand would be a breach, or in the case of a dishonored check perhaps also slander-of-credit?

if the deposit was contractually set-up in specie, and the bank withheld return of the appropriate specific amount, it would seem that tort would also be involved??

my question as to ENGLISH usages: if the bank concealed the charges, or somehow misrepresented their legitimacy, and by contract or general limitation the customer became time-barred, would her subsequent action to recover, in spite of the bar, be characterized as the use of fraud or mistake as a ground of restitution, or simply as implied-contractual defenses against the bar?


<== 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 !