| 单词 | Banker's standard of care |
| 释义 | 銀行謹慎責任準則 The standard of care required of a reasonable person involved in the business of banking. Whether in any given case a bank has acted without negligence is necessarily a question of fact. It is impossible to lay down general rules or statements which will determine what is negligence and what is not. Each case must be decided on its own circumstances: Cmr of Taxation v English Scottish and Australian Bank Ltd [1920] AC 683 (PC). It has been held that it is not our way of life either in trade or banking or in private relationships to be always on an alert against dishonesty: Orbit Mining and Trading Co Ltd v Westminster Bank Ltd [1962] 3 All ER 565, [1963] 1 QB 794 (CA). In the cases of bills of exchange, to require a thorough inquiry into the history of each cheque would render banking business as ordinarily carried on impossible and customers would often be left for long periods without available money: Cmr of Taxation v English Scottish and Australian Bank Ltd, supra; Lloyds Bank Ltd v The Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China [1929] 1 KB 40. The courts should adopt a practical, commercial view in determining whether a banker has acted reasonably and to judge whether by the standard of a careful banker, the banker in question should have been expected to make any further enquiries. A bank is entitled to presume that its customer is honest unless and until there are indications to the contrary: Zanda Investment Ltd v Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association & Ors [1994] 2 HKC 409 (HC). Bank officials need not play the role of amateur detectives or subject an account to microscopic examination: Lloyds Bank Ltd v The Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, supra. The officials of a bank fulfilling their duty need not be abnormally suspicious. Moneys must be paid out, among a multiplicity of other transactions, with reasonable dispatch: Penmount Estates Ltd v National Provincial Bank Ltd (1945) 173 LT 344. However, in a case of bills of exchange, the bank bears the burden of disproving negligence: Asiatic European Corp v Overseas Trust Bank Ltd & Anor [1967] HKLR 1; Bills of Exchange Ordinance (Cap 19) s 86. See also Reasonable person; Standard of care. 合理的人從事銀行業所應符合的謹慎準則。銀行在個別的案件中是否沒有行事疏忽，必然是事實的問題。不可能規定決定疏忽行為的一般規則或指引。必須按照個別案件本身的情況來決定：Cmr of Taxation v English Scottish and Australian Bank [1920] AC 683（樞密院）。法庭曾裁定，在貿易或銀行業或私人關係上經常保持高度警覺，以防他人有不誠實行為，並非我們的生活方式：Orbit Mining and Trading Co Ltd v Westminster Bank Ltd[1962] 3 All ER 565, [1963] 1 QB 794（英國上訴法院）。在匯票案件中，如規定銀行須仔細調查每張支票的來龍去脈，會致使銀行的一般業務無法如常進行，而銀行客戶經常會因此而陷入長時間沒錢可用的情況。Cmr of Taxation v English Scottish and Australian Bank，見上文；Lloyds Bank Ltd v Chartered Bank of India，Australia and China [1929] 1 KB 40。法庭應採用實際而商業性的觀點，以決定銀行的行為是否合理，及以謹慎的銀行標準判斷來看，應否預期有關的銀行作出進一步的調查。除非及直至有相反的顯示，銀行有權推定其顧客誠實，：Zanda Investment Ltd v Bank of America National Trust and Saving Association & Ors [1994] 2 HKC 409（高等法院）。銀行職員毋須擔任業餘偵探的角色，亦毋須對銀行戶口作出如顯微鏡的檢查：Lloyds Bank Ltd v Chartered Bank of India，Australia and China，見上文。銀行職員履行職責時，毋須格外起疑心。在其他繁多而重複的交易之中，必須合理地迅速予以支付款項：Penmount Estates Ltd v National Provincial Bank Ltd (1945) 173 LT 344。但在匯票的案件中，銀行有責任證明本身行事時沒有疏忽：Asiatic European Co Ltd v Overseas Trust Bank Ltd [1967] HKLR 1；《匯票條例》（第19章）第86條。另見 Reasonable person; Standard of car。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。