Commercial Transactions . Module 7 Summer 2006-07. Negotiable Instruments.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
In this module, we focus on financial instruments which replaced the need for physical exchange of money or other valuables in commercial transactions, and which could facilitate complex arrangements, not possible with physical only settlements.
We start with Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes and then discuss Cheques-- a special type of negotiable instrument.
A good working knowledge of the Bills of Exchange Act and Cheques Act is required.
We will look at the use of negotiable instruments for payment, finance and structuring.
Students will be expected to:
DOCUMENTARY COLLECTION FOR AN IMPORTER
What is it?
A documentary collection consists of a Bill of Exchange plus various shipping documents relating to the goods you are importing…invoice, bill of lading, other transport documents, insurance policy…delivered to you-via your agent bank. These documents are released to you in exchange for:
8. Buyer (importer)
3. Seller (exporter)
1. Contract of Sale
4. Lodgement of shipping documents
9b. Shipping documents
6. Shipping documents
5. Remitting Bank
7. Presenting bank
1. Contract is negotiated between buyer seller.
2. Method of payment -documentary collection, shipment prior to payment.
3. Exporter prepares shipping documents, BOE and instructions
4. Documents lodged with remitting bank, who acts in accordance with instructions from exporter
5. Remitting bank examines documents
6. Remitting bank dispatches documents to presenting bank.
7. Upon receipt shipping documents, presenting bank presents BOE to importer
8. Importer will either agree to make payment or refuse
9a. If importer agrees to payment, payment or acceptance of BOE
9b. Shipping documents released to importer on payment or return of accepted BOE
10. Presenting bank makes payment to remitting bank
11. Remitting bank makes payment to exporter.
Commercial Bill Acceptance Facility
KD Morris & Sons Ltd (In Liq) v. Bank of Qld Ltd (1980) 146 CLR 165
In 1973, Keith Morris Construction Ltd group was Queensland’s largest building contractor. A subsidiary, KD Morris & Sons Pty Ltd needed $2m. Bank of Qld and Tricontinental agreed to provide Co with commercial bill acceptance facilities of $1m each.
The Company would draw bills payable in 180 days which it could immediately discount with Tricontinental providing the Company with cash to the value of the bills less discount. Each 180 daysbills would be “rolled over”, meaning new bills would take the place of those retired on maturity.
Method had advantage to Bank that it involved no actual advance of funds. Instead the money came from the discounter, Tricontinental and ultimately other operators in the commercial bill market to whom Tricontinental might in turn discount the bills. The Bank supplied ready acceptability of the Company’s bills in the market place i.e. credit enhancement. It added its name. In this case, security was required (land) but not always so if credit rating (often dependent on strong cash flow, debt service ability) sufficient.
A in Australia owes B in NZ AUD 100,000 for goods
B owes C in Australia AUD 100,000 for goods
To satisfy B’s debt to C, B could assign the debt owed to B by A to C by means of the statutory machinery for assignment of choses in action (NSW Conveyancing Act)
Instead of A sending currency to B and B sending money to C, B could send a written order to A to pay C the amount of B’s debt.
The drawing of a BofE is distinct from the underlying sale of goods.
Sydney 10th March 2005
60 days after sight, pay C or order the sum of one hundred thousand Australian dollars (AUD100,000)
Signed A………………….. Signed B………………………
To be effective the bill must comply with s. 8 BEA
B is drawer, A is drawee (and if A accepts, the acceptor),C is the payee
This bill is an unconditional order in writing given by B, signed by B, requiring A to pay not on demand, but at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to the order of C….there is no bearer in this bill
S. 8 BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT
ADDRESSED BY ONE PERSON
SIGNED BY DRAWER
TO PAY ON DEMAND
OR AT FIXED OR DETERMINABLE FUTURE TIME
A SUM CERTAIN
John Shearer Limited and Arrowdrest Group P/L and Gehl Company (1995) 17 ACSR 350 (1995) 130 ALR 732
John Shearer was a dealer in Agricultural machinery and for many years distributed machinery manufactured by Gehl. Gehl terminated the distributorship and Shearer dishonoured various Bills of Exchange
Gehl served statutory demands pursuant to the provisions of the Corporations Law s.459 (part of 1993 amendments). Shearer claimed it was a new basis whereby a company could apply to the court to set aside that demand by disputing the genuineness of the debt or relying on an offsetting claim.
Court reviewed authorities (under Bills of Exchange Act, possible only to dispute in exceptional circumstances (if bill procured by fraud, duress or for a consideration which had failed,) interaction with the provisions of the corporations law (was not a Code which replaced the law re Bills of Exchange and must be read together) and policy (need for certainty in law merchant).
In view of the importance of the preservation of the law merchant in international and intranational transactions, would not permit law of Bills of Exchange to be amended by implications. It had to fit very specifically within the meanings.
“The general law having made it clear that unliquidated cross claims cannot be relied on to extinguish a claim on a bill of exchnage, the only available conclusion is a finding that John Shearer does not have an offsetting claim”.
(1922) 31 CLR 46
Document purported to be Bill of Exchange.US Company sent it to Melbourne Co (R)
Ordered R to pay “Sixty days after sight” approx 1,471 pounds to order Caravel “ with interest at the rate of 8% per annum until arrival of payment in London to cover”.
Was it a Bill of Exchange? A sum certain?
Sum not capable of being ascertained at time fixed for payment
Time fixed for payment 60 days after sight
Sum certain even if it is plus interest provided it can be calculated with certainty at date in question
Interest was to run until arrival of payment in London.Uncertain when or if this would happen
Uncertain both on face document and in fact
Not a Bill of Exchange
TRANSFERABILITY - easy, no notice required
SECURITY - no need for cash
DISCOUNT - liquidity when desired
NEGOTIABILITY - transferee can hold free of prior defects in title
PAYMENT - facilitate payments at a distance
FINANCING - commercial paper, flexible, liquid
DISHONOUR - can sue on bill rather than establish facts of debt
DEFENCES LIMITED - no set- off for unliquidated damages
USE IN MULTIPLE TRANSACTION SCENARIO - can eliminate need for some
CLASSES OF BILLS
INLAND BILL - Drawn and Payable Within Australia
FOREIGN BILL - Any Bill not an inland Bill
More complex procedure on dishonour
Clean foreign bill has no documents attached
Documentary foreign bill has documents attached
Protest necessary for non-acceptance, non-payment
ACCOMMODATION BILLS S.33 - Drawn for purpose of financing
Most commercial paper
Accommodation party lends name
Can improve credit and make it discountable.
INCHOATE OR INCOMPLETE BILLS S. 25 - Lack some material particular
Person in possession prima facie authority to complete
Must be filled within reasonable time and in accordance with authority
Acceptance can be general or qualified
Qualified acceptance varies effect and must be clear and unambiguous
BLANK - Signature of indorser; no indorsee named.
SPECIAL - Signature indorser and indorsee named.
CONDITIONAL - See s.38BEA which permits disregard of condition.
RESTRICTIVE - Further transfer restricted. See s. 40.
SANS RECOURS - No recourse.
Indorser or drawer negatives liability to holder in event dishonour.
S. 29 Bills of Exchange Act
Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a signature on a bill is forged or placed thereon without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, the forged or unauthorized signature is wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the bill or to give a discharge therefor or to enforce payment thereof against any party thereto can be acquired through or under that signature, unless the party against whom it is sought to retain or enforce payment of the bill is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority. Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the ratification of an unauthorized signature not amounting to a forgery.
A person in possession of a Bill under a forged indorsement is not the payee. Because the indorsement is inoperative, they cannot be the indorsee. Because it cannot make the bill payable to bearer (see definition of bearer), it follows that they cannot be a holder (see definition of holder) or a holder in due course (see s. 34, and exception in circumstances and to extent in 60(2)(b))
Subject to the provisions of this Act…in s. 29…include s.12(3) fictitious payee, s. 59(b)(i) estoppel of acceptor, 60(2)(b) estoppel of indorser, and banker protections
Note assumption in s. 35
A holder in due course is one who takes a Bill
S. 58 FUNDS IN HANDS OF DRAWEE
A bill of itself does not operate as an assignment of funds in the hands of the drawee available for the payment thereof and the drawee of a bill who does not accept as required by this Act is not liable on the instrument.
S. 59 LIABILITY OF ACCEPTOR
The acceptor…engages that he will pay it according to the tenor of his acceptance; and is precluded from denying to holder in due course, the existence of drawer genuineness of his signature and his capacity and authority to draw the bill and…..
S. 60 LIABILITY OF DRAWER OR INDORSER
The drawer engages that on due presentment it shall be accepted and paid according to its tenor and that if it is dishonoured he will compensate the holder or any indorser who is compelled to pay it, provided that the requisite proceedings on dishonour are duly taken and is precluded from denying to a holder in due course the existence of the payee and his then capacity to endorse.
S. 61 STRANGER SIGNING BILL LIABLE AS INDORSER
Where a person signs a bill otherwise than as drawer or acceptor, he thereby incurs the liabilities of an indorser to a H in due course.
S. 63 TRANSFEROR BY DELIVERY AND TRANSFEREE
Where the holder of a bill payable to bearer negotiates it by delivery without indorsing it, he is called a transferor by delivery.(who) is not liable on the instrument…warrants to his immediate transferee being a holder for value that the bill is what it purports to be, that he has a right to transfer it, and that at the time of transfer he is not aware of any fact which renders it valueless.
S. 64 PAYMENT IN DUE COURSE - A bill is discharged by payment in due course by or on behalf of the drawee or acceptor.
Payment in due course means payment made at or after maturity of the bill to the holder thereof in good faith and without notice that his title to the bill is defective…….
S. 69 ALTERATION OF A BILL - (1) Where a bill or acceptance is materially altered without the assent of all parties liable on the bill, the bill is avoided except as against a party who has himself made, authorized, or assented to the alteration and subsequent indorsers.
Provided that where a bill has been materially altered, but the alteration is not apparent, and the bill is in the hands of a holder in due course, such holder may avail himself of the bill as if it had not been altered, and may enforce payment of it according to its original tenor.
(2) In particular, the following alterations are material…any alteration of the date, the sum payable, the time of payment, the place of payment, and, where a bill has been accepted generally, the addition of a place of payment without the acceptor’s assent.
(1952) 2QB 216
Ross drew 2 promissory notes for 10,000 pounds each in favour of Fathi and Faysal Nabulsy Company. He later alleged they were to pay for shares he did not receive.
PNs subsequently indorsed Fathi and Faysul Nabulsy.Handed to Arab Bank who sued Ross and succeeded. Appeal to CA.
Was Arab bank holder in due course? Depends on whether at time they took it, it was complete and regular on the face of it (which includes back of it). Regularity different to invalidity or liability. Irregular indorsement can still mean liability. Evidence of bankers of City of London they would not have accepted endorsement. Company not description. Part of the name.
Was the irregularity waived? No unconditional waiver
Not holders in due course because of irregularity.
Open to claim as holders, but get no better title than person he took it from
No defect shown in title Nabulsy brothers. Allegations of fraud not proven
(1984) 1 NSWLR 121
In mid May, Toy drew BE to its own order,mistakenly dated 3.12.82; the due date. Accepted by Cassidy. Indorsed by Lumsden, MD of Toy and handed to Heller, financiers of Toy. In June 82, Beech of Heller wrote Invoice No 7190 on Bill. In Sept 82, altered date on bill to 14.5.82. Lumsden initialled alteration. Bill presented to Cassidy 31.12.82. Dishonoured. Heller sued Toy (Receivers) and Cassidy in SC
Irregular on its face. Indorsement irregular-did not mention name indorser.
Original date and date of maturity same. (s. 34 not holder in due course if bill not “complete and regular on the face of it”). Prima facie,Plaintiff is holder in due course s. 35(2).Regularity differs from validity and liability (Arab Bank).
Would indorsement or obvious error in date reasonably give rise to doubt?
No, Lumsden was MD and no doubt his signature was one on behalf of company.s.8. Bill not invalid by reason only undated. Heller was holder in due course. Addition of Invoice No 7190 material alteration? No Change to date material alteration? Refer to s. 69(2)-yes, defined as so. On this ground alone, not assented to by Cassidy, claim against Cassidy fails
(1891) AC 107
Vucina regularly drew bills upon Vagliano who accepted them. Bills drawn payable to order C Petridi. Glyka, a Vagliano clerk forged number of Vucina Bills. Unwittingly accepted by Vagliano.Glyka forged indorsements by Petridi,cashed bills at Bank of England. By time fraud detected 71,500 pounds paid out! Vagliano Bros sued Bank of England and won.Appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed.Appeal to HL.
Lords Halsbury LC and Lord Herschell
Have bankers paid away money under circumstances enabling Vagliano to refuse to acknowledge payments made on his behalf?
Not bill of exchange because forged. Bore in mind what one would import in mind if it was. Was bank misled into doing something by Vagliano?
Bank misled.Vagliano careless in not checking.
Query settled by Vagliano clerk. If, payable to fictitious person, it is payable to bearer. Bank not obliged to hold up mercantile practice to check signature
(1897) AC 90
Mr. Piper was clerk with Clutton and Co. He tricked employer to draw cheques in favour of “George Brett”. No such person.
Piper took cheques, endorsed them as Brett and gave them to Attenborough, pawnbrokers to redeem goods. He was known to pawnbrokers as Brett.
Clutton and Co’s bank paid out on cheques
Piper was found out. Clutton and Co sued pawnbrokers. Not successful. Appeal dismissed. Appeal to HL
Lord Halsbury LC - Cheque made payable to fictitious or nonexistent person still considered payable to bearer although drawer believed it was a real person.
Bearer cheque can be negotiated by delivery. Order cheque must be negotiated by endorsement and delivery. Payable to bearer
When it explicitly says Pay Bearer. Last or only endorsement is one in blank. Payee is fictitious or nonexistent person
White pretended to Macbeth he had bought 5,000 shares from Kerr and needed finance. Macbeth drew a cheque in favour of Kerr for 11,250 pounds. White forged Kerr’s indorsement and paid cheque into his own account with NSW Bank.
White was found out. Macbeth sued Bank and won.
Appeal dismissed. Appeal to House of Lords.
Lord Loreburn LC - Bank liable unless could show “fictitious” payee. Could not do so.
Greenwood opened cheque account with Martins. Wife forged signature
Most drawn in favour of non-existing person. She indorsed them and obtained payment from bank.11 months later, Mr. G found her out. Allowed another 7 months to go by before reporting. She then shot herself. He claimed bank could not debit him for cheques. Bank denied claim. He sued and was successful. Appeal to CA successful. Greenwood appealed to HL.
Crockett J - No question of ratification or of adoption. Estoppel?
Essential factors giving rise to estoppel: --A representation or conduct amounting to same to induce a course of conduct --An act or omission resulting from representation, whether actual or by conduct by the person to whom the representation made.--Detriment to such person as a consequence
Mere silence not representation BUT When there is duty and then deliberate silence this may become a representation. As in this case.
Duty to disclose forgery to bank admitted. Appeal dismissed
1. Normally Tina Motors would succeed because a signatory did not sign the cheques
2. However in this case evidence showed Mr. Hardy had twice been doubtful of authenticity of signature and been reassured by Mr. I. Mr. I put on inquiry and chose not to examine situation
3. Continuing duty to act with reasonable care to ensure proper working of account
S. 89 DEFINITION
Not a Bill of Exchange
Main BEA provisions apply with modification
Note their use in financing and why
No need to go into underlying debt
If signed by more than, one deemed joint and several
A promise to pay which relies on credit for marketability
Simple to draw up
Very few defences
Summary judgement possible
Alternative to a loan agreement
A separate obligation to others
Outside definition of debenture in Corporations Act
Consider the Westpoint example
Used in international capital raising.
Emu Brewery Trust
Senior Debt Provider
Emu Brewery Mezzanine P/L
1st FF Charge
2nd FF Charge
Emu Brewery site owner
PROMISSORY NOTE Promissory Note No: 8518
Expiry Date: 21 August 2006
Issue Date: 21 August 2003
1. Emu Brewery Mezzanine Pty Ltd (Emu Brewery Mezzanine) promises to pay to R & L Andrew Pty Ltd ATF R & L Andrew Superannuation Fund (the Investor)
of 13 Gertrude Street Sunshine VIC 3020 Australia
(a) the sum of $71,000 and
(b) interest (Interest)
in accordance with the terms set out below
2. This Note is non-negotiable and non-transferable
3. The Principal Sum plus 2% will be paid on the Expiry Date
4. Interest will be paid at the rate of 12% per annum on a monthly basis in arrears.
ASIC claimed in cross appeal $35m raised by issue of PNs used were “securities” and Emu/Westpoint offered to issue securities (a debenture) to investors without preparing lodging or providing a disclosure document as required by Corporations Act. Not so, said majority.
Did a right of early repayment prevent there being a fixed or determinable future time for payment? Or, sum certain? No
CHEQUES ACT 1986
DEFINITION s. 10
(1) A cheque is an UNCONDITIONAL ORDER IN WRITING that;
(a) Is addressed by a person to another person (being a FINANCIAL INSTITUTION)
(b) Is signed by the person giving it and
(c) Requires the FINANCIAL INSTITUTION to pay ON DEMAND A SUM CERTAIN in money
(2)An instrument that does not comply with subsection (1) or that orders any act to be done in addition to the payment of money, is not a cheque.
s. 3 for definitions of FIC INSTITUTION, FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, FINANCIAL INSTITUTION CODES
s. 11 for what is an ORDER
s. 12 for what is the meaning of UNCONDITIONAL ORDER TO PAY
s. 13 for what is meant by ORDER ADDRESSED TO A FINANCIAL INSTITUION
s. 14 for meaning of ORDER TO PAY ON DEMAND
s. 15 for ORDER TO PAY A SUM CERTAIN
a) The Reserve Bank of Australia; or
b) A body corporate that is an ADI (authorised deposit-taking institution) for the purposes of the Banking Act 1959; or
c) An FIC institution; or
d) A person who carries on State banking within the meaning of paragraph 51 (xiii) of the Constitution; or
e) A person (other than a person referred to in paragraph (a) (b) (c) or (d) who carries on the business of banking outside Australia
FIC INSTITUTIONmeans a body corporate that is, for the purposes of any of the Financial Institutions Codes;
a) A building society; or b) A credit union; or c) A special services provider
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS CODESmeans the following codes;
The Financial Institutions (NSW) Code of New South Wales
And so on for the other states.
s. 11 CHEQUES ACT
Order to pay
An order to pay must be more than an authorization or request to pay.
s. 12 CHEQUES ACT
Unconditional order to pay
(1) An order to pay on a contingency is not an unconditional order to pay and the happening of the event does not make the order an unconditional order to pay.
(2) An order to pay shall not be taken not to be an unconditional order to pay by reason only that the order is coupled with either or both of the following:
(a) An indication of a particular account to be debited by the financial institution to which the order is addressed;
(b) A statement of the transaction giving rise to the order
s. 13 CHEQUES ACT
Order addressed to a financial institution
(1) An order to pay is not addressed to a financial institution unless:
(a) The order is addressed to a financial institution and to no other person;
(b) the order is addressed to one financial institution only; and
(c) the financial institution is named, or otherwise indicated with reasonable certainty, in the instrument containing the order.
(2) An order to pay may be an order to pay addressed to a financial institution notwithstanding that a person other than the financial institution on which the instrument containing the order is drawn, the payee or the drawer is specified in the instrument.
s.14 CHEQUES ACT
Order to pay on demand
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an order to pay is an order to pay on demand if:
(a) the order is expressed to require payment on demand, at sight or on presentation; or
(b) no time for payment is expressed in the instrument containing the order.
(2) Subject to subsection 16(3), an order to pay is not an order to pay on demand if the order is expressed to require, or requires by implication, payment otherwise than on demand, at sight or on presentation.
(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), an order to pay is not an order to pay on demand if the order is expressed to require, or requires by implication, payment only:
(a) at or before a particular time; or
(b) where the instrument containing the order is presented at or before a particular time.
s. 15 CHEQUES ACT
Order to pay a sum certain
(1) Subject to subsection (2), an order to pay is not an order to pay a sum certain unless the sum ordered to be paid is specified with reasonable certainty in the instrument containing the order.
(2) Where more than one sum is expressed to be payable in an instrument containing an order to pay, the lesser or least, as the case may be, of the sums so expressed to be payable shall be taken to be the only sum ordered to be paid by the instrument.
(3) An order to pay may be an order to pay a sum certain notwithstanding that the order requires a sum to be paid according to a rate of exchange specified in, or to be ascertained as directed by, the instrument containing the order.
(4) Where an instrument contains: (a) an order to pay a specified sum; and (b) an order to pay not more than a specified sum; the instrument shall be taken to require payment of the lesser of the sums so specified.
S. 19 CHEQUES ACT
Meaning of specification of person as payee or indorsee
(1) A person shall not be taken to be specified in a cheque as payee or indorsee unless the person:
a) Is named or otherwise indicated with reasonable certainty, in the cheque: and
b) Is not a fictitious or non-existing person
(2) Where the holder for the time being of an office is specified in a cheque as payee or indorsee, the person who is the holder for the time being of the office shall be taken to be named in the cheque as payee or indorsee, as the case may be.
When is a payee or indorsee NOT a payee or indorsee for the purposes of the Cheque Act?
When: A fictitious person / A non-existing person / Reference is too obscure or uncertain
S. 20 CHEQUES ACT
A CHEQUE IS EITHER PAYABLE TO ORDER (REQUIRES DRAWEE TO PAY TO OR TO ORDER OF A PERSON SPECIFIED, OR 2 OR MORE PERSONS JOINTLY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AS PAYEE OR INDORSEE S. 21)
OR PAYABLE TO BEARER (IF NOT PAYABLE TO ORDER WITHIN S. 21…SEE S. 22)
ONLY 2 CHOICES!
S.23 CHEQUES ACT
A cheque may be converted from payable to bearer to one payable to order.
Where the only, or last , indorsement of a cheque requires the drawee institution to pay the sum ordered to be paid by the cheque to bearer, the holder may, using the signature of the indorser, convert the cheque into a cheque payable to order by adding to, or altering, the indorsement so that the cheque is expressed to require the drawee institution to pay the sum ordered to be paid by the cheque to or to the order of:
a) A person specified in the cheque as indorsee; or
b) 2 or more persons specified in the cheque, jointly or in the alternative, as indorsee.
S. 32 CHEQUES ACT
(1) Where a signature is written or placed on a cheque as that of the drawer without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be (in this subsection referred to as the relevant person), the signature is wholly inoperative as that of the relevant person unless:
(a) the person against whom it is sought to assert a right on the cheque is estopped from denying the genuineness of the signature or the existence of authority for the signature, as the case requires; or
(b) the signature is ratified or adopted by the relevant person; but the signature operates as the signature of the person who wrote or placed it on the cheque in favour of any person who, in good faith and without notice that it had been written or placed on the cheque without the authority of the relevant person, pays the cheque or takes the cheque for value.
(2) Subject to sections 74 and 92, subsection 93(2), section 94 and subsections 95(1) and (3) and 98(1), where a signature is written or placed on a cheque otherwise than as that of the drawer without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be (in this subsection referred to as the relevant person), the signature is wholly inoperative as that of the relevant person unless:
(a) the person against whom it is sought to assert a right on the cheque is estopped from denying the genuineness of the signature or the existence of authority for the signature, as the case requires; or
(b) the signature is ratified or adopted by the relevant person;
but the signature operates as the signature of the person who wrote or placed it on the cheque in favour of any person who, in good faith and without notice that it had been written or placed on the cheque without the authority of the relevant person, pays the cheque or takes the cheque for value.
S.50 CHEQUES ACT
(1) The holder (def.s.3)of a cheque is a holder in due course if; (a) The cheque was transferred by negotiation to the holder and, at the time when the holder took the cheque, the cheque; (i) Was complete and regular on the face of it; (ii) Was not a stale cheque; and (iii) Did not bear a crossing of the kind referred to in 53(1)(b)…2 parallel transverse lines with the words not negotiable between…; and (b) The holder took the cheque: (i) In good faith; (ii) For value; and (iii) Without notice;
A. Of any dishonour of the cheque; or
B. Of any defect in the title of the person who transferred the cheque to the holder or that the person who transferred the cheque to the holder had no title to the cheque
(2) Without limiting the generality of paragraph (1)(b) the holder of a cheque shall, for the purposes of that paragraph, be deemed to have taken the cheque with notice of a defect in the title of the person who transferred the cheque to the holder if the holder took the cheque with notice that the person transferred the cheque to the holder in breach of faith or under circumstances amounting to a fraud.
S. 53 Crossing and crossed cheque defined
Just putting the words not negotiable is NOT ENOUGH
s.54 Effect of crossing on payment of a cheque
A crossing has effect as a direction by drawer to drawee not to pay
the cheque otherwise than to a financial institution
s. 55 Effect of taking cheque crossed not negotiable
Where a cheque that bears a crossing of the kind referred to in paragraph 53 (1)(b) is transferred by negotiation to a person, the person does not receive, and is not capable of giving, a better title to the cheque than the title that the person from whom the first mentioned person took the cheque had.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES
A CHEQUE is
A BILL OF EXCHANGE
A PROMISSORY NOTE
IS CONFIDENCE IN THEM JUSTIFIED?
SIDNEY RAPER V. COMMONWEALTH TRADING BANK OF AUSTRALIA (1975) 2 NSWLR 227
Athanasios Lyritzis and Janelle Ronda Lyritzis v. Westpac Banking Corp. No SG54 of 1992 FED No 812/94
Lyritzis opal miners and dealers in Coober Pedy. Mr Lyritzis accepted 4 bank cheques purportedly drawn on ANZ from interstate buyer unknown to him. He alleged that shortly before transaction, Pearson, Manager of W told him that a bank cheque was “as good as cash” and acceptable to any bank as a good and valid order for payment, but failed to advise him that there were circumstances in which a bank cheque could be dishonoured (in particular, that if bank cheque fraudulently obtained and completed, the bank on whom it was drawn could refuse to honour it- $170,000 cheque dishonoured because ANZ said form had been stolen). Interstate buyer disappeared with the opals.
Federal Court SA
Flourishing cash economy. Almost all deals in cash between miners and dealers. Only exceptions being when dealing with trusted and well established friends. W was only bank in town. Turned on credit. Court believed evidence of Lyritzis and Ms. Braun who introduced deal rather than Pearson.
ABA Guidelines for Dishonour
1. Forged or counterfeit instruments
2. Bank cheques materially altered
3. Bank cheques reported lost or stolen
4. Failure of consideration for the issue of a bank cheque
5. Court order restraining payment
MAIN CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION OF FINANCIAL INSTUTION TO CUSTOMER
CAN BE LIABLE for BREACH OF CONTRACT/DEFAMATION
EXCEPTIONS: BANK CAN REFUSE PAYMENT
STALE CHEQUES (S. 3(5) 15 months; see also ss. 89,60)
COUNTERMAND i.e. stopping. Unambiguous and identify particular cheque concerned, made to responsible person, by drawer s. 90. Note Commercial Bank of Australia v. Younis re mistake in fact.
NOTICE CUSTOMER’S MENTAL INCAPACITY S. 90(1)(b)
NOTICE of CUSTOMER’S DEATH s. 90(1)(c)
NOTICE BANKRUPTCYss. 125 and 126 of Bankruptcy Act
NOTICE of WINDING UP of A COMPANY
SERVICE of GARNISHEE
POST DATED CHEQUES s. 16
KNOWLEDGE by BANK of DEFECT IN TITLE of PRESENTER
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT
THE DRAWER’s SIGNATURE - General position is that financial institution cannot debit customer’s account. Unless situation is within s. 32.
INDORSEMENTS - Financial Institution receives protection under s. 94 (1) Not restricted to situation where cheque paid to another financial institution.
94 Protection of drawee institution paying cheque lacking indorsement or with irregular or unauthorised indorsement
(1) Subject to subsection 32(1), where:
(a) the drawee institution, in good faith and without negligence, pays a cheque, whether or not to a financial institution; and
(b) an indorsement has been written or placed on the cheque without the authority of the person whose indorsement it purports to be the drawee institution:
(c) does not, in paying the cheque, incur any liability by reason only of:
(i) the indorsement having been written or placed on the cheque without the authority of the person whose indorsement it purports to be; or
(ii) its failure to concern itself with the genuineness of, or the existence of authority for, the indorsement; and
(d) shall be deemed to have paid the cheque in due course.
Also protected even where there is no indorsement on an order cheque or the indorsement is irregular, but only if payment made to another financial institution. S.94(2)
(2) Subject to subsection 32(1), where: (a) the drawee institution, in good faith and without negligence, pays a cheque to a financial institution; and
(b) the cheque is not indorsed or is irregularly indorsed; the drawee institution: (c) does not, in paying the cheque, incur any liability by reason only of the absence of, or the irregularity in, the indorsement; and (d) shall be deemed to have paid the cheque in due course.
CUSTOMER DUTIES with respect to forgery, unauthorised signature
1) Duty to take care to prevent fraudulent alterations of cheques which might cause loss to banker Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia v. Sydney Wide Stores which confirmed Macmillan (English case).
In absence of express agreement to contrary, customer’s duty is limited to duty to refrain from drafting a cheque in such a manner as to facilitate fraud or forgery.
2) Duty to inform bank of any unauthorised cheques as soon as aware
No duty to check statements
Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v. Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd (1986), Applying Greenwood
Attempts to expand duty have failed:
Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd (1986); National Australia Bank Ltd v. Hokit (June 96). But notice in Westpac v. Metlej (1987)-court prepared to contemplate wider duty.
COMMONWEALTH TRADING BANK OF AUSTRALIA V. SYDNEY WIDE STORES (1981) 148CLR 304
Sydney Wide drew cheques on CTB
Arising from the contract between banker and customer, there is a duty upon the customer to take usual and reasonable precautions in drawing a cheque to prevent a fraudulent alteration which might occasion loss to the banker.
Whether there is a breach of this duty by neglecting some usual and
reasonable precaution in the drawing of cheques is a question of fact.
Appeal allowed and remitted back to SC.
(1986) 1 AC 80
Leung (accounts clerk) with Tai Hing in HK, forged signature MD over 5 yrs on 300 cheques/HK D5.5m--paid into accounts with names similar to real suppliers. Leung took money,fled to Taiwan. Cheques drawn on 3 banks. Company sued 3 banks and won against Liu Chong. Appeal to CA by banks successful. Appeal to PC by Tai Hing.
Lord Scarman DOES LAW RECOGNISE ANY DUTY OF CARE OWED BY CUSTOMER TO BANK BEYOND: 1) Duty to refrain from drawing cheque in way which facilitates fraud, forgery London Joint Stock Bank Ltd. V. Macmillan (1918) 2) Duty to inform bank of any forgery as soon as he (customer) becomes aware of it? Greenwood v. Martins Bank Ltd (1933) AC 51Banks alleged duty wider…implied term in contract …to take reasonable precautions in management of business with bank to prevent forged cheques to be presented…and in tort, duty to check periodic statements and advise of irregularities Test of whether a term should be implied in contract is necessity. Not necessary here. If banks want it, they have to put it in contracts expressly, or use influence to get it into legislation.Any obligations in tort no greater than those in contract. None here
(1987) Aust Torts Rep 80-102
M was a partner in a building partnership with Cheque account with Westpac.2 people to sign cheques, one of whom solicitor. Solicitor signed a number of cheques and M would add signature when it needed to be paid. Kept cheque book in lunch box in car. Someone stole 3 cheques, forged M’s signature and got away with money. M sued Westpac and won. Westpac appealed to CA
Court was prepared to contemplate wider duty than in Tai Hing
However, not necessary
No breach of duty in circumstances
Even if breach, not sufficiently relevant
Legal cause of loss is Westpac failure to detect forgery
(95040542) SCNSW CA
Hokit, R and M operated hairdressing salons. Companies employed Banno as bookkeeper. In 1990-94 Banno signed cheques in name of Mark and Peter. Mark controlled Hokit and later other companies, knew that Banno was signing cheques in his name and was writing amounts larger than amounts recorded. He allowed her to sign his name and gave her signed blank cheques as a means of obtaining cash for himself
WHO BEARS BURDEN FORGED CHEQUES?
Bank argued for extension of customer duties to include 1. Obligation to take reasonable care to prevent presentation forged Cheques 2. Companies estopped from denying regularity of cheques signed because they knew of and acquiesced in her signing other cheques
Appeal dismissed: NAB failed to show any circumstances justifying creation of extension of duties customers owe their banks. Impossible to contend implied term-not necessary to give business efficacy to contract, nor can it be said that term “goes without saying”
Banks do not seem to pay attention to signatures any more.
Bank can increase fees to cover losses or change contract.
The fact that companies knew of and acquiesced in employee signing cheques for certain purposes and did not tell Bank about these arrangements, did not constitute a representation that the forged cheques could be paid and did not generate estoppel.
Failure of Bank to call evidence on matters solely within its knowledge is fatal to argument that, had the Bank known these facts, it would have taken steps to avoid the risk of loss flowing from employee signing her name to unauthorised cheques.
INTERNATIONAL (1975) 1 QB 654
Commander Bill lived in Nigeria and had cheque account with NW. Kept cheque book in locked cupboard. Someone broke in and stole one of the cheques.Cheque brought to Mr. Ismail by Mr. Haider. Ismail said he would pay Haider 10,400 Nigerian pounds for it if it were met. Entered his name as payee and asked Barclays to arrange for special collection
Barclays did so. Cheque honoured and Barclays credited Ismail’s account. Ismail paid Haider. Commander Bill discovered theft and told bank.Bank agreed they could not debit his account. NW sued Barclays and Ismail in HC
Succeeds against both. Circumstances in which it came into hands of Ismail and lack of writing on it reeked of suspicion.
Mistake of fact
Drawee bank’s duty is to pay cheques in terms of customer’s order. See ss. 88-94..Where bank pays crossed cheque otherwise than to a bank, it will be liable to the true owner for any loss suffered subject to defences there set out.
Risk is that bank may pay cheque to a person who is not true owner.
Bank might be liable in conversion from true owner because indorsement might be forged.
s. 95 Where a bank in good faith and without negligence receives payment, bank does not incur liability to true owner by reason only of having received payment.
For “without negligence” see. S.95
Note in this context both practice of banks generally and internal rules and procedures.
(1979) 25 ACTR 3
AMP drew a cheque on Bank NSW in favour of Mr. and Mrs Derham.
Stolen by Volters. Forged Derham’s signature on front and wrote “Pay W. Volters” on the back. Paid cheque into ANZ, which collected from Bank NSW.
Derham sued Bank NSW in conversion and money had and received and won on former. No finding on latter. Bank appealed to SC
Bank claimed benefit s. 65 BEA (Paying banker…pays in good faith and in ordinary course of business…). Note Cheques Act now correct Act.
Found to apply. Ordinary course of business despite irregular endorsement because of section and expert evidence other bankers practice.
Also. S. 86…where banker on whom crossed cheque is drawn in good faith and without negligence…pays…found to be in good faith and no negligence here….but no need to discuss.
See s. 94 Cheques Act.
(1924) 1 KB 775
Underwood was merchant and had a Cheque account with Bank. He
formed a company, owned all shares except one with wife.Sole director.
Opened cheque account with King and Co.When cheques came in he paid them to own cheque account after indorsement. By the time he died, had misappropriated 8.500 pounds. Company and Lloyds (held debenture and had taken over King) sued Bank and succeeded
Bank appealed to CA
BEA protection to bankers who in good faith without negligence collect crossed cheques for customer.
Bank put on inquiry
No matter that he was sole director etc
Made no suitable inquiry
Can take the consequences
(1968) 1 WLR 956
Kureshy worked for Marfani. Made himself known to restaurateur (Ali) as Mr. Eliaszade. K went to Midland bank and opened cheque account in name of E. Nominated as referees Mr. Ali and Mr. Syeed.Bank wrote to both. Same day Mr. K paid a crossed cheque for 3,000 into account drawn by Marfani in favour of E. Specially cleared. Next day Ali visited bank and told manager that in his opinion E all right.
Within a fortnight Mr. K had withdrawn all money and gone.
Marfani sued Midland without success
Appealed to CA
Was the bank put on inquiry?
Not on facts as presented to judge
No need to upset that
Zang handed Tilley cheque for 1,000 pounds in favour of J Tilley or Order. Tilley paid cheque into Tilley Autos A/C with Westminster. Paying in slip said bank reserved right to postpone payment of cheques drawn against unclear effects. Zang’s bank did not meet cheque. Tilleys solicitors obtained cheque from Westminster so he could sue Zang. Suit dismissed, they returned it to W bank. Bank sued Z in HC and succeeded. His appeal allowed. Bank appealed to HL.
Holder defined. Westminster received cheque without indorsement and therefore not holder within BEA act? Bank relied on section of Cheques Act…banker who give value for or has lien on cheque…without indorsement…has such rights as he would have had if, upon delivery, holder had indorsed… Lost any rights by handing cheque over to Tilleys solicitors? Normal practice of bank to require indorsement of cheque by payee when it is to be credited to some account other than payee. Not done here.Tilley handed cheque for collection and appellants received it for collection. Gave value? No. Bank did not establish they had allowed Tilleys Autos to draw against cheque. Appeal dismissed
A/C PAYEE ONLY
NOT MENTIONED IN THE CHEQUES ACT
THEREFORE NO STATUTORY SIGNIFICANCE
CAN, however, PUT COLLECTING BANK ON NOTICE
CAN BE NEGLIGENCE
A bank which collects the proceeds of a cheque crossed “not negotiable-account payee only” for a customer who is NOT the named payee of the cheque without making inquiry as to how the customer came to be paying the cheque into their own account has not acted without negligence and will not be protected by s. 95 against an action in conversion by the true owner of the cheque.
See Universal Guarantees Pty Ltd v. NAB
Found to apply even where there was an apparently proper indorsement of the cheque by the payee. Hunter BNZ Finance Ltd v. CG Maloney P/L (1988) 18 NSWLR 420
V. NATIONAL BANK OF AUSTRALASIA
(1965) 1 WLR 69
Universal was finance company. Moffitt was acceptance officer for HP applications. He began creating fictitious applications which he accepted. Later, he arranged cheques drawn in favour fictitious applicants. When he banked money for company, he would extract some cash and replace it with one of the cheques endorsed by him back to the company. Stole 60,000 pounds. Moffitt was found out. Company sued the National Bank without success. Appealed to PC
In circumstances nothing paid out or in. Debtor creditor relationship unaffected. Analysis on basis paying /collecting banker unrealistic. Has Bank failed in contractual duty? Should have been put on inquiry because it was not paid to payee. Had not been paid through another bank? s. 86 BEA crossing s.87 not negotiable a/c payee etc operate as warning but do not prevent negotiation.
Found nothing suspicious to put bank on inquiry.