— —— Part
III.
Business of Banking.
643
- '^ect. 19.
advance has been made, and that each item would be barred when six years had elapsed (t) but in another the mere existence of a Guarantees, debt, without balance struck or demand made on the guarantor, was held not to make the Statute of Limitations run from that
date(»)-
Sect. 20.
Charges and Cojiwiissions,
1295. The right of a banker to charges and commissions would Eight to seem, in the absence of an express agreement by the customer to charges and pay them, to depend on the universal custom of bankers, as in the ^o^^^i^^^^^^s. case of his right to charge interest on overdrafts {a). For it is doubtful whether the right can be based on acquiescence in the charges and commissions as disclosed in the pass-book, in view of the doubts cast on the existence of any obligation on the part of the customer to examine his pass-book (b). Sect. 21.
Bankers Obligation
to Secrecy.
A
banker is bound not to disclose the state of a customer's account, whether the same be in credit or overdrawn, except on reasonable and proper occasion, as when answering inquiries by a proposing guarantor [c), or under compulsion of law(<i). Where an overdraft is guaranteed, it would seem that the guarantor has a right to be informed of the extent of his liability, and that the banker is justified in disclosing to him the condition of the customer's account so far as is necessary for this purpose (e). Production, supplying copies, or affording inspection of books under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act is either done on reasonable and proper occasion or under compulsion of law (/). A banker is justified in answering inquiries regarding his customer's general position and character put to him by a person contemplating business relations with that customer (g). But, even where the answers are intentionally false, the banker cannot be held responsible for any loss or damage sustained in
1296.
Parr's Banking Co., Ltd. v. Yates, [1898] 2 Q. B. 460. Hartland v. Jukes (1863), 32 L. J. (ex.) 162, See Bousev. Bradford Banking Co., Ltd., [1894] A. C. 586, per Lord Herschell, at p. 596, as to the unreasonableness of a bank granting an overdraft and immediately proceeding to sue for it. The difficulty may be avoided by taking a new guarantee before the end of the six years, or by specifying in the guarantee the liability of the surety to be to pay a certain time after demand. See generally title Limitatio^t op Actions. (a) See p. 631, ante. (b) See pp. 619, 620, ante. (c) See p. 640, a7ite. Clarke v. London and County (d) Hardy v. Veasey (1868), L. R. 3 Exch. 107 Banking Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 552, holding a person a customer though overdrawn Loyd V. Freshfield (1826), 2 C. & P. 325 (compulsion of law) Foster v. Bank It is not clear whether the obligation is a of London (1862), 3 F.' & F. 214. strictly legal one, see Tassell v. Cooper (1850), 9 C. B. 509. (e) See p. 640, ante. (/) See pp. 644— 647, pos^. (g) Rohshaw v. Smith (1878), 38 L. T. 423, where the exhibition of a libellous anonymous letter was held privileged. For form of letter of inquiry as to financial position of customer and banker's reply thereto, see Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. II., pp. 467, 468. (t)
(u)
T T 2
Obligation to ^^^^^^7-
Inquiries,
