法搜网--中国法律信息搜索网
濠电偛顦板ú鏍閵夛妇鈹嶉柍鈺佸暕缁憋拷 | 濠电偛顦板ú鏍閵夆晛妫樺ù鐓庣摠椤︼拷 | 濠碘剝顨呴悧鍛閿燂拷 | 缂備緡鍠楅崕鎶藉箹瑜斿顒勫炊閳哄啫濞� | 闂佸憡甯楅崹宕囪姳閵娿儮鏋栭柡鍥╁仧娴硷拷 | 濠殿喗蓱閸ㄥ磭鑺遍妸銉㈡灃闁哄洨鍋熸导锟� | 缂傚倷绀佺换鎴犵矈閻熸壋鏋栭柡鍥╁仧娴硷拷 | 闁荤偞绋戦張顒勫棘閸屾埃鏋栭柡鍥╁仧娴硷拷 | 闁荤姴娲らˇ鎶筋敊閹炬枼鏋栭柡鍥╁仧娴硷拷 | 闂佸憡鑹鹃悧鍕焵椤戣棄浜鹃梺闈涙閸嬫捇鏌涘鐐 | 濠碘剝顨呴悧鍛閵壯冨灊濡わ絽鍟犻崑鎾绘晸閿燂拷 | 濠电偛顦板ú鏍閵夆晛妫橀柛銉畱婵拷 | 闂佸憡鑹鹃悧鍡涘箖閹剧粯鍤戦柛鎰ㄦ櫆閹凤拷 | 濠电偛顦板ú鏍閵壯勬殰婵繂鐬煎Σ锟� | 闂佸憡鐟﹂悺鏇㈠焵椤掆偓閸熸挳銆傞懞銉﹀劅闁跨噦鎷� | 
濠电偛顦板ú鏍閵夆晛鐐婇柛娆嶅劚婵拷 | 闁荤姴娲らˇ鎶筋敊閹捐绠伴柛銉戝啰顢� | 闁汇埄鍨伴幗婊堝极閵堝應鏋栭柡鍥f濞硷拷 | 濠电偛顦板ú鏍閵壯€鍋撻崷顓炰粶濠殿噯鎷� | 濠电偛顦板ú鏍閵夆晜鐓傚┑鐘辫兌閻わ拷 | 濠电偛顦板ú鏍閵夆晜鈷掓い鏂垮⒔閹斤拷 | 濠电偛顦板ú婵嬶綖婢跺本鍠嗛柨婵嗙墱閸わ拷 | 闁荤喍妞掔粈渚€宕规禒瀣闁搞儻绠戞慨锟� | 闁诲氦顕栨禍婵堟兜閸撲胶灏甸柨鐕傛嫹 | 濠殿喗蓱閸ㄧ敻寮查姀鐘灃闁哄洨濮鹃~锟� | 闁荤偞绋戦張顒勫棘閸屾埃鏋栭柡鍥╁Ь椤拷 | 缂傚倷绀佺换鎴犵矈閻熸壋鏋栭柡鍥╁Ь椤拷 | 闂佸憡甯楅崹鍓佹兜閸撲胶灏甸柨鐕傛嫹 | 缂備讲鍋撻柛娆嶅劤缁愭绻涙径瀣閻炴熬鎷� | 濠碘剝顨呴悧鍛閵壯勬儱閻庯綆浜滈埣锟� | 闂侀潧妫岄崑鎾绘煏閸″繐浜鹃梺闈涙閸嬫捇鏌曢崱蹇撲壕
银行与客户的法律关系;中英银行法之比较(英文)

  It is not doubtful that a paying bank, as a agent of its customer, shall obey the customer’s mandate. If the bank exceeds the authorization by the customer, it may break the contract. This principle subjects to common law defences such as estoppel, ratification, ambiguity of the mandate or specific equitable defence. The similar principle can be found in General Principles of the Civil Law of the P. R.. China and the Chinese Contract Law in relation to agency and commission contracts. Then, what constitutes a genuine mandate? To response this question, the common law, in my opinion, has failed to set out a standard. In an earlier case of Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd. v Cradock, which concerned a take-over transaction of a company by using the capital of that company, a contravention of company law, and a bank manager transferred the total amount standing to the credit of the company’s account through a cheque drawn on it, it was held the bank broke the duty of care because it failed to make inquiry while finding that the payment was unusual. This decision was argued that it imposed too stringent duty on the bank. In Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd, which involved an authorized junior partner in a law firm who misused the client account held by his law firm and the bank honored his cheques without enquiry even if the bank manager knew he was a gambler, the standard of care was formulated by Parker LJ as follows:
  The question must be whether if a reasonable and honest banker knew of the relevant facts he would have considered that there was a serious or real possibility albeit not amounting to a probability that his customer might be being defrauded. … If it is established then in my view a reasonable banker would be in breach of duty if he continued to pay cheques without enquiry. He could not simply sit back and ignore the situation.
  This standard was suggested as a fairer balance between the competing factors on either side. But, as far as I can see, I am still confused where to draw a line between two cases about duty of care. It seems to me that what constitutes a genuine mandate and how a reasonable and honest banker should consider of his customer being defrauded remains to be unanswered and needs the discretion of courts in particular circumstances. The standard appeared to be a subjective one.
  The approach of Chinese law dealing with paying bank’s duty may be simple but effective. First of all, it should be noted that although the law allows personal cheques, this kind of cheque is rarely used in practice because most Chinese people prefer trusting cashes and other payment orders rather than trusting personal cheques and banks are reluctant to issue personal cheques to bring trouble to themselves and that the personal customers have never complain for not being given cheque books. Cheques are only widely used by legal persons in China. There is a tradition of using seals for purpose of signing contract or other important documents. The laws respect this tradition and stipulate while a corporate body is registered, it must at the same time register its seals on each of which the name of the corporate is cut. A ‘signature’ of a legal person usually means a seal or a seal with an authorized private signature. If a document (as well as a contract) is stamped with a seal, it will be treated as an authoritative document and the person who affixed the seal on it is treated as authorized person whatever position he held. According with the Law of P. R. China on Negotiable Instruments 1995 ,a circular was issued by People’s Bank of China in December 1995 for execution of this law, which stipulates that a valid negotiable instrument including a cheque drawn by a corporate shall bear three seals namely the corporate seal, the finance department seal and the personal seal of the legal representative or his delegate. Any execution which is different from this specified procedure renders the document void. The samples of these seals must be provided to the bank before they are effective use on cheques. Therefore, the bank’s duty is straightforward and the standard of duty appears to be an objective one. The bank owns a duty to detect whether the seals stamped on a cheque are identical of the original kept samples (at present, checking machines are widely used). If they are identical, the cheque is regards as a genuine mandate of payment drawn by authorization. If not, the cheque must be bounced with a written notice to the payee or bearer. As long as the presentment of a ‘genuine cheque’, the bank does not own the customer a duty of enquiry even though any unusual payment occurred. I believe that until now, the disputes as that of Selangor and Lipkin cases cannot be happened in China.


第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 页 共[9]页
上面法规内容为部分内容,如果要查看全文请点击此处:查看全文
【发表评论】 【互动社区】
 
相关文章




婵炲娲栫欢銉︾┍閳╁啩绱� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╁棘娴煎瓨顦� | 婵℃鐗呯欢锟� | 缂侇喗鍎抽幖褔寮崶鈺冨娇 | 闁告帗鍨崇花銊モ枖閺囩偟浼� | 婵ɑ鍨崇花銊モ枖閺囩偟浼� | 缂備礁绻戠粊鐟扳枖閺囩偟浼� | 閻炴稑鏈弬鍌氣枖閺囩偟浼� | 閻犲洤顦抽鎾斥枖閺囩偟浼� | 闁告艾鐗嗛幃锟� | 婵℃鐗呯欢銉у垝妤e啠鍋撻敓锟� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╁棘閸ワ箑濮� | 闁告艾鐗嗛幃鎾绘嚑閸愨晜鎷� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉ф暜濮濆瞼妲� | 
婵炲娲栫欢銉╁炊閸欍儱濮� | 閻犲洤顦抽鎾诲箰閸パ冪 | 閻㈩垰鎽滈弫銈呪枖閺団槅娼� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉р偓鍦仜婵拷 | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╂煂婵犱胶鐤� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╂⒒椤斿墽鎽� | 婵炲娲濋~澶屾喆閿濆牜鍤� | 閻熶椒绀侀崹浠嬪棘閸ワ箑濮� | 閻庤浜濈涵鍓佺尵閿燂拷 | 婵ɑ鍨甸弲銏犫枖閺囩姾顫� | 閻炴稑鏈弬鍌氣枖閺囩姾顫� | 缂備礁绻戠粊鐟扳枖閺囩姾顫� | 闁告帗鍨剁涵鍓佺尵閿燂拷 | 缂佲偓閸欍儳绐楁繛澶嬫礈鐞氾拷 | 闁靛棌鍋撻柕鍡忓亾闁靛棌鍋撻柕鍡忓亾