An action for defamation would be possible.

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??

If you mean defamation, then yes in theory. In practice, an action in defamation seems rather unlikely, but it is certainly possible.

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?

If fraud could be proved, time would not run against the plaintiff until plaintiff discovered the fraud, or should have discovered it.

Traditionally, the English courts have drawn no distinction between contract and quasi-contract here; quasi-contractual action is caught by the 6-year bar on 'actions in simple contract'.

The distinction between contract and quasi-contract, while of course it can be drawn, is therefore not obviously useful to a plaintiff in this context.

Theorists of a certain stamp have waxed indignant at this, but having asserted that contract *should* be different period from quasi-contract, they can then think of no more appropriate period than the contractual one. See for example Limitation of Actions, Law Comm CP 151 (http://www.open.gov.uk/ lawcomm/library/ lib-com.htm#libcp151) part V.

Steve Hedley

===================================================
FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
telephone and answering machine : (01223) 334931
messages : (01223) 334900
fax : (01223) 334967

Christ's College Cambridge CB2 3BU
===================================================