"John Boyle" wrote
In order to forward the letter, wouldn't the B/S employee need to look up the address on their computer? Wouldn't that create an audit trail?
If not, how could the B/S show that their systems were only being accessed by employees for *valid* reasons? [DPA issues...?]
In message , Tim writes
It would depend on their systems. If it were a screen only enquiry then paper audit wouldnt be kept, but if it were a print enquiry then a copy may be kept, but it wouldnt show why the enquiry was made or, on some systems, who made the enquiry. The record would not be kept as a record against the account holder, thereby enabling an easy 'look up', but just as another entry in a very very long list.
Why would they need to show that? In an event, Bank & B/Soc staff have a secrecy clause in their contracts.
Nobody, but Chris asked "How can the bank be so sure that he owes money to his friend?". I'm suggesting it is irrelevant how sure the bank is or what it it thinks. Whether the friend owes money to the OP is a complete red herring.
So? The scenario is "what if OP claims friend owes him money and friend cancels SO without OP's knowledge". What payment arrangements friend pursues in order to settle his debt to OP is independent of the SO originally set up. Friend could have decided he would send cheques instead, or pay cash, or buy rounds of Guinness.
Why do you think I didn't? What are you referring to?
The OP just keeps getting money fed into his account by SO and doesn't know that his friend from whom he thinks the payments come has stopped the SO and that the friend's bank is simply sending money in error. Surely any money sent in error *always* continues to belong to whomever sent it.
I don't know what you're trying to imply here.
No balderdash. The quote marks meant it wasn't proper theft (as with intention to permanently deprive etc), but merely taking without authority. Remember the money was originally taken from the former remitter's account after the SO had been cancelled.
It should be presumed in the absence of any reason to suspect the friend of planning to defraud the OP of the balance due on his debt.
Eh? "The remitter" is ambiguous. In the case of an orderly SO, the remitter is the account holder. In the case of an erroneous funds transfer, the remitter is the bank. The bank does not owe the recipient any debt. The debt (if any) owed by the true debtor is owed irrespective of the involvement of his banker, and his banker is not responsible for him.
Why? The creditor has no contractual arrangement with the debtor's bank, and therefore said bank *cannot* be responsible to the creditor.
You must be joking. There's no need for case law. It's obvious that the bank is just acting for the friend and so is responsible only to the friend.
In message , Ronald Raygun writes
I agree with that bit. The 'valid point' i was referring to was the 'what if he were to claim the money......" not the 'how can the bank be sure.. etc.,'
The situation would only be resolved if it went to court.
No, if it went to court the case would turn on this very point.
I prefer the last one of those scenarios, but if there is a debtor/creditor relationship then the remitter's position has not changed because of the erroneous payment and he has not lost out.
The case law.
Well at least youve moved on from claiming it was the bank's money!
I know all that.
That would imply that the bank still has the funds, which it hasnt.
'should'? why? In any event the pint is irrelevant. As already said, the point only comes into play if it went to court.
Who said it was? I am not.
I agree. That isnt the point though is it?
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.