Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
32 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Lloyds Bank v Voller |
Overrunning is construed as acceptance by bank of customer's offer to agree to extension of credit in accordance with bank's usual terms and conditions |
|
|
Infants Relief Act 1874 |
Legislation providing that loads to minors are absolutely void |
|
|
Hart v O'Connor |
Contract is voidable only if the party seeking to avoid the contract on the grounds of lack of capacity can establish that the bank had notice of his or her lack of capacity.
|
|
|
Haugesund Kommume v Depfa ACS Bank
|
A loan to a local authority was void for lack of authority - bank was entitled to restitutionary remedy on the basis of unjust enrichment |
|
|
Carlton Communications v The Football League |
Purported guarantee which was included in an initial “subject to contract” bid was binding - Langley J held that "subject to contract" was incompatible with a unilateral offer
|
|
|
Behan v Bank of Ireland |
Plaintiff alleged that he had received a legally binding assurance from the defendant bank that the defendant would provide him with funds to enable him to “farm his way out of his problems”. Morris J. held that the arrangement between the bank and the plaintiff was too imprecise to constitute a legally enforceable contract.
|
|
|
Kennedy and McGill v Allied Irish Banks |
Banker had stated that the proposed loan facility “was not too bad but that he would have to ‘run it passed [sic] the boys upstairs”’, and that the representative later phoned and said that the facility was “ok”. Murphy J. found, on the balance of probabilities, that the alleged agreement had not taken place.
|
|
|
National Asset Loan Management Ltd v Coyle
|
Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument that Anglo Irish Bank, had re-organised his 21 loan accounts into six separate facilities without his re-authorisation because he had signed a facility letter.
|
|
|
Consumer Credit Act 1995 (as amended) |
Legislation setting out consumer credit requirements |
|
|
Friends First v Lavelle |
Charleton J. held that if the first defendant had not succeeded on the non est factum defence, her defence under the CCA 1995 would have succeeded on the basis that she had not received the necessary loan documents until well after the loan agreement had been concluded.
Non est factum succeeded because borrower had not know nature of loan contract due to negligence of bank in advising her |
|
|
The Mortgages Directive 2014 |
Directive on mortgages - not yet transposed |
|
|
S.38 Consumer Credit Act 1995 |
Failure to comply with CCA renders loan contract unenforceable |
|
|
Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society |
Lord Hoffmann set out the classic statement n construction of commercial contracts: interpretation based on reasonable person with reasonable background knowledge at time of contract - words to be given natural and ordinary meaning |
|
|
Analog Devices v Zurich Insurance Co.
|
Geoghegan J approved the principles set out in Investors Compensation Scheme |
|
|
AIB v Galvin Developments |
Finlay Geoghegan J. found that although the loan contract did not contain any provisions limiting liability, in the circumstances of the case in question, there was a collateral contract whereby the lender had agreed to limit liability to 50 per cent of the amount drawn down - statement was intended to have contractual effect
|
|
|
AIB (Group) (UK) v Martin |
Interpretation clause in mortgage contract interpreted by House of Lords to make business partners jointly and severally liable, despite the fact that they had not intended liability for one another's debts - Lord Hutton justified the on the basis of legal certainty |
|
|
Associated Japanese Bank v Credit du Nord SA |
Case sets out applicable test for implied term - must be necessary to render the contract workable or one which the reasonable man would consider "so obvious that it goes without saying" |
|
|
Ringsend Property Ltd v Donatex and McNamara |
No implied term that ability to grant planning permission had to be within ambit of DDDA - Kelly J did not consider the term "so obvious that it goes without saying" |
|
|
Re Zurich Bank v Coffey |
Finlay Geoghegan held that there was no implied term that a loan be non-recourse |
|
|
Whelan & Anor v AIB |
Borrower's belief that loan was non-recourse and family would not be exposed to risk was insufficient to displace contractual provision, although O'Donnell J questioned whether it would be equitable for the bank to enforce it against family members. |
|
|
AIB v Higgins |
One of the defendants argued that he had not understood the nature of joint and several liability and that this had not been explained to him but this was rejected by Kelly J because he had sworn he knew terms before signing
|
|
|
Maloney v Danske Bank |
Borrower had failed to comply with a condition precedent meant that a floating charge created during the restructuring of a loan could not be enforced |
|
|
Trustee Savings Bank Dublin v Maughan |
Costello J. held that, if the lender wishes to calculate the interest charged on a compound rather than a simple basis, this must be expressly provided for in the loan contract. |
|
|
Secured Property Loans v Floyd |
Laffoy J. rejected the defendant borrower’s argument that an interest rate of 19.41 per cent charged by the lender (a “private sub-prime mortgage lender”) constituted an “unconscionable and oppressive term of the loan agreement.” Necessary to adduce evidence of a comparative analysis with other lenders which takes account of all relevant factors, including the size of the loan, the duration of the loan, the creditworthiness of the borrower, whether the loan was to be secured or not, and, if secured, whether the security was adequate.
|
|
|
Paragon Finance v Nash |
Implied term that "a lender will not exercise his discretion in a way that no reasonable lender, acting reasonably, would do" |
|
|
Financial Services Ombudsman v Millar |
Kelly J held that the term “Rates of interest are altered in response to market conditions without prior notice and with immediate effect” was sufficiently clear |
|
|
Bank of Baroda v Panessar |
Court formulated the "mechanics of payment" test - debtor is entitled to reasonable opportunity to implement mechanics of payment but not to raise the money |
|
|
ACC v Kelly |
Clarke J suggested that there is a "good faith" requirement in calling in loan - should have had "good reason" |
|
|
O'Flynn v Carbon Finance |
Irvine J. endorsed the “mechanics of payment” test and rejected the alternative test which would require allowing a borrower a “reasonable period” of time in which to make repayment as being too subjective - defendant only had a few hours on the facts
|
|
|
EBS v William Campbell |
Defendant argued that in signing the relevant loan agreement, she was a very vulnerable person acting at all times under the influence of her husband and that there were factors present which should have put the lender on inquiry. Mrs Campbell was a 50 per cent shareholder in the company and played a part in the business, “albeit on a much more limited scale” than Mr Campbell. Birmingham J found no evidence of undue influence and no factors present which would put the lender on inquiry. |
|
|
Saunders v Anglia |
House of Lords set out the criteria for a plea of non est factum: (a)That there was a radical or fundamental difference between what he signed and what he thought he was signing; (b)That the mistake was as to the general character of the document as opposed to the legal effect; and (c)That there was a lack of negligence i.e. that he took all reasonable precautions in the circumstances to find out what the document was. |
|
|
Raypath Resources v Toronto Dominion Bank |
Canadian courts have held that a lender has an obligation to act in good faith and in a reasonable and prudent manner in demanding repayment |
