82,915
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The banker’s right to [[Combination of accounts|combine accounts]] arises where a customer has multiple [[bank account]]s, usually where some are in debit and some in credit. This stands to reason, obviously — unless there are multiple accounts, all overdrawn, but only some of them benefit from a [[security interest]] — though see also the rules about [[bailment]]. It is sometimes called a Banker’s ''[[set-off]]'' but, in 1972’s (still leading) case {{casenote|National Westminster Bank Ltd|Halesowen}}, Lord Buckley noted it isn’t a [[set off]] right so much as a function of accounting: | The banker’s right to [[Combination of accounts|combine accounts]] arises where a customer has multiple [[bank account]]s, usually where some are in debit and some in credit. This stands to reason, obviously — unless there are multiple accounts, all overdrawn, but only some of them benefit from a [[security interest]] — though see also the rules about [[bailment]]. It is sometimes called a Banker’s ''[[set-off]]'' but, in 1972’s (still leading) case {{casenote|National Westminster Bank Ltd|Halesowen}}, Lord Buckley noted it isn’t a [[set off]] right so much as a function of accounting: | ||
:“Nor is it a [[set-off]] situation, which postulates mutual but independent obligations between the two parties. It is an ''accounting'' situation, in which the existence and amount of one party’s liability to the other can only be ascertained by discovering the ultimate balance of their mutual dealing.” | :“Nor is it a [[set-off]] situation, which postulates mutual but independent obligations between the two parties. It is an ''accounting'' situation, in which the existence and amount of one party’s liability to the other can only be ascertained by discovering the ultimate balance of their mutual dealing.” | ||