This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

BCL Law Notes Commercial Remedies BCL Notes

United Australia V. Barclays Bank Notes

Updated United Australia V. Barclays Bank Notes

Commercial Remedies BCL Notes

Commercial Remedies BCL

Approximately 497 pages

These are detailed case summaries (excerpts from cases - not paraphrased) I made during the Oxford BCL for the Commercial Remedies course....

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

United Australia v. Barclays Bank

Facts

A company called Lower Ancobra (Gold Coast) Areas, Ld., owed the appellants a sum of 1900l., and in payment drew a cheque for that amount making it payable to the appellant company or order. The appellant company had a secretary named Emons, who had authority to indorse cheques for the purpose of paying them into the appellant company's bank account, but had no authority to indorse cheques specially on behalf of the appellant company for the purpose of enabling payment to be made to a third party. Emons, purporting to act on the appellant company's behalf, specially indorsed the cheque so as to make it payable to the M. F. G. Trust, Ld., of which Emons was a director. Thereupon M. F. G. indorsed the cheque and paid it into its account at the respondent bank. The respondent bank knew that Emons, besides being secretary of the appellant company, was a director of M. F. G., but without making any enquiries the bank collected the proceeds of the cheque and placed them to the credit of M. F. G.'s account.

Proceedings by the appellant against MFG: On May 13, 1935, the appellant company issued a writ against M. F. G. claiming the 1900l. as "money lent," or alternatively as "money had and received" by M. F. G. to the use of the appellant company. It will be observed that the appellant company at the time had no knowledge of the cheque, or of how any such cheque had been dealt with by the respondent bank. On October 28, 1935, on the petition of another creditor, a winding-up order was made against M. F.G. The action by the appellant company against M. F. G. was thereupon automatically stayed before trial and no judgment was ever obtained.

On December 10, 1935, the appellant company signed an affidavit of proof of debt in the liquidation of M. F. G. stating that M. F. G. was indebted to the amount of 1900l. to the appellant company for money lent or money had and received, but this proof was never admitted. There was thus never any recovery, either by judgment or otherwise, of any part of the sum claimed from M. F. G.

Proceedings by the appellant against the Bank: By writ issued on November 8, 1937, the appellant company sued the respondent bank for (1.) damages for conversion; (2.) alternatively, damages for negligence; (3.) in the further alternative, for 1900l. as money had and received by the defendants to the use of the plaintiffs.

Question

The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the proceedings against M. F. G., carried on up to the point that they in fact reached, constitute a valid ground of defence for the respondent bank and so relieve it in the present action from a liability, which would otherwise certainly attach to it, to repay to the appellant company the sum of 1900l. of which they had been deprived and which they have not received from any other source.

Holding

Lower Court’s ruling

The view taken by the Courts below is that the appellant company, by bringing their action against M. F. G., elected to "waive the tort" and thereby became irrevocably committed, even against a different defendant, to the view that Emons was, as he professed to be, duly authorised as the appellant company's agent to deal with the cheque as he did. If so, the Bank's dealing with the cheque was not tortious and the present action would fail.

Effect of “Waiving a Tort”

Where "waiving the tort" was possible, it was nothing more than a choice between possible remedies derived from a time when it was not permitted to combine them or to pursue them in the alternative, and when there were procedural advantages in selecting the form of assumpsit. For example, there were no pitfalls in drawing the declaration in assumpsit, and the cause...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes.

More Commercial Remedies Bcl Samples