Turquand, no such exception to the rule existed since the third party acted on good faith and did not have any knowledge as to the irregularity. It also had complete knowledge of the articles of memorandum and association of the company, and forgery and negligence was not carried out on behalf of the Bank. Hence, the Bank can claim the loan, and hold the defendant liable. Even though the third party is given a benefit of convenience, this is not absolute in nature. It is subject to restrictions.
Bank Deposits / Corporate Deposits / Balances in the A/c. Banks require huge amounts of capital to run the business and makes profit. Banks source these funds from their own funds and also from deposits from the public . This way rotation of money takes place and bank uses these funds to lend, however, they are still obliged to repay these liabilities to their
Sometimes, even though the bank has done a lot of research on the particular debt collector company, there is always a small likelihood that the particular debt collector company uses forceful methods on the debtor or maybe the debtor has a hunch that the debt collector company has been acting in treachery. In these circumstances, the debtor can file a lawsuit against both the bank and the debt collector company. No matter how the case ends (regardless whether the bank wins or losses), the bank must be certain that the bank itself would not be fully accountable for appointing the debt collector company. Therefore, it is important for the bank to get a solid proof of insurance from the debt collector company, just in case that the debtor sues both the bank and the debt collector company. The insurance is normally known as “Errors and Omissions Insurance” and morally upright debt collector companies will have the insurance to serve as a protection.
The bank claimed they had been defamed. Held: The plaintiff’s appeal failed. In their natural meaning the words were not capable in law of being defamatory. Lord Selborne LC said: ‘The test, according to the authorities, is, whether under the circumstances in which the writing was published, reasonable men, to whom the publication
However according to http://www.mondaq.com/x/189046/wealth+management/Reconciling+FACTA+With+Bahamian+Laws the bank can be exempted from a breach of confidentiality by certain requirements such as disclosure is under compulsion of law, duty of the public to disclose, the interest of the bank requires disclosure and disclosure is implied by the customer. A bank is also exempted from breach of confidentiality if they have to present a clients’ financial information to the courts for court matters without the consent of the client, however this can be only done if the bank ensures that the court order is confidential. Despite this, based on the common law principles the courts will not allow banks to present them with a client’s
Here the owners of the company are not held accountable for any debts incurred in the course of the business. Next there are companies Limited by Shares. This means that people can buy shares into the company. Finally, China allows investment from foreigners in the form of business referred to as Foreign Investment Entities. There are several types.
But then these mistakes took the form of serious consequence. A detailed 22 months investigation by FBI was carried and major evidence of the company’s illegal practices was found. The company had to bear a loss of $475 millions. The judge Carol Kenner remarked the actions of the organization as predatory in nature. The company seemed liking hunting its customers to pay back its debt at each and every cost.
As the Attachments did not create any proprietary interest the Board found that the assets to which they relate should be included in the mandatory statutory trust resulting from the BVI winding up order; (b) the equitable jurisdiction of the court to uphold statutory distribution: Based, inter alia, on the case of Carron Iron Company Proprietors v Maclaren (1855) 5 HLC 415 the Board considered that the granting of the sought injunction was justified where a creditor invoked a foreign jurisdiction to bypass the statutory scheme of distribution. It considered that failure to do so would "disturb the general principle of equal distribution which the court is always anxious to enforce". Exercising the Anti-Suit Jurisdiction The Privy Council found that the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought should be exercised
The bank had feels guilty of damaging conduct in their investigation. The judgement by the court is that they cannot claim back the damages although the bank has breached the duty of trust and confidence. Therefore in my opinion, I disagree that the courts appeal although the court has sufficient evidence to dismiss a sustainable claim for damages because they did not breach the duty of trust and confidence. A similar case of McNeill v. Aberdeen City Council (No.2) -  IRLR 113 has support that Aberdeen City Council has unfairly dismissed McNeill. Before this, McNeill accepted that he was guilty of gross misconduct as he used the sexist remark to female employees.
The further implications as provided for by the Act is in terms of s46(6) is subject to s77(3)(e). These sections relate to the liability of a director in relation to distributions that are contrary to s46. A director will be liable and for any consequence if the director was present at a particular meeting and participated in the meeting or participated in the decision making and failed to vote against a specific distribution, despite knowing that such a distribution goes against s46 of the Act. The liability of such a director will only arise if both the solvency and liquidity test cannot be established after the distribution was