kaka22: I don't know which section to ask this question. @Mod. Pls move my thread to appropriate section if this is not the appropriate one.

Some fellows and i were arguing in my area today whether banks could be sued for money lost that
had not been paid into one's account or not.

Those that supported the notion argued that Banks could be sued "because banks have a duty to guarantee security to customers once they are inside the bank". They argued further that they wouldn't have lost their money if they were not in the bank and since they lost it to bank robberies then they should be compensated. They gave the analogy of how most formal organisations removed themselves from any responsibility that may arise as result of car stolen in their premises and that's why the statement 'ALL CARS ARE PARKED AT OWNERS' RISK' can seen in their parking spaces/garage.

Those who opposed it argued that "since no transaction has taken place then banks cannot be sued for compensation".

Who is right between the two? Please I need your opinion as regard this. I want you to back your comment(s) with facts. And what does Nigerian law say about this?

Hmmmm this is serious ooo. My guy hope u nava go arrange wit ur guys to come robber u wit the money inside bank premises wen u na va deposit and dey wait for compensation. Guy market fall press u.ooo

nnocurruption: Yes, you can sue the bank because, they are suppose to be responsible for the security of the people inside the bank.

sue them for how much? When u can even claim higher of the the money stolen. Use ur brain.

You can sue if the bank manager is the robber.

mac-delene:

Hmmmm this is serious ooo. My guy hope u nava go arrange wit ur guys to come robber u wit the money inside bank premises wen u na va deposit and dey wait for compensation. Guy market fall press u.ooo

/

Happy New Year to all!

My question: If the money is not deposited, how does the bank know how much you have to even assume responsibility?

The bank shall bear no responsibility for funds not entrusted in their care.

\

This is very interesting arguement, the fact is that, if a customer lost his or her money to robbers even at the counter when d teller had already received the cash but had not stamp it. The customer is on his own. The only thing that we make bank liable is when the bank official/staff stamp d deposit slip.

[quote author=kaka22]I don't know which section to ask this question. @Mod. Pls move my

Some fellows and i were arguing in my area today whether banks could be sued for money lost that
had not been paid into one's account or not.

Those that supported the notion argued that Banks could be sued "because banks have a duty to guarantee security to customers once they are inside the bank". They argued further that they wouldn't have lost their money if they were not in the bank and since they lost it to bank robberies then they should be compensated. They gave the analogy of how most formal organisations removed themselves from any responsibility that may arise as result of car stolen in their premises and that's why the statement 'ALL CARS ARE PARKED AT OWNERS' RISK' can seen in their parking spaces/garage.

Those who opposed it argued that "since no transaction has taken place then banks cannot be sued for compensation".

Who is right between the two? Please I need your opinion as regard this. I want you to back your comment(s) with facts. And what does Nigerian law say about th bank can not compensate u on it because dr is no evideence of money with u

Adinije: if u haven't deposited ur money and it got stloen, it's ur loss but if u have just deposited and the bank got robbed immediately then it's the bank's loss.

Guess u right cos logically no one wants to be at loss most especially banks. They must ve thought of this and lobbied to make sure a part of the law covers that

Legit: I studied Law in the US. I am really not verse in Nigerian Law, but since Nigerian Law is based on Common Law, it is similar to the US. There's is a different between a Licensee and invitee. Since you're in the bank premises to conduct business you're a License, therefore the bank owe you a duty and foreseeable care. The statement that we are not responsibile in case of parking lot, is just to limit the liability, will not hold in court, as you've establish a bailment situation, where you entrust your car to other. So yes, the bank will be responsible. However; you must proof your lost and possession at the time of incident. This is not a legal advise, as I don't have the detail info.

thankgod that a person with a superior legal mind has vindicted my position. Ths is the position of the law as regards d issue. Im sure that my legal career is in good hands. We may waived a lay man's opinion as regards issue when they are mistaken. Bt when a lawyer and students of law err on simple principle of law then the future of d legal professn would be brought under disrespute. D ans is simple. The bank owes d customer a foreseeable duty of care to make sure that its premises is safe for banking business. To my fellow law students at unec, i have one thing for una- we dey read law. Thanks to barr. Ukwueze, barr. Asogwa. U guys are the best. Thanks

If the robbery took place after the money was deposited then you ve nothin to wory
But if the robbery hapend while you re abt to deposit then you are liable and not the bank.
The bank will only be liable if you deposit but postin of the transaction has not been done and d bank thereafta fails to post the transaction

hehehehehe if ur moni is yet to be deposited n u lost it........its gone....bye. ...

My friend u can't sue nobody for an armed robbery case. Did the bank invite robbers into their premises? For the 1000 naira they stole from u do u know how much bank's money they stole?

it is not practicable to enforce such,

how would the customer be able to prove the amount of money stolen from him?

is he going to get a receipt from the Armed robber to prove the amount stolen

lionspot: thankgod that a person with a superior legal mind has vindicted my position. Ths is the position of the law as regards d issue. Im sure that my legal career is in good hands. We may waived a lay man's opinion as regards issue when they are mistaken. Bt when a lawyer and students of law err on simple principle of law then the future of d legal professn would be brought under disrespute. D ans is simple. The bank owes d customer a foreseeable duty of care to make sure that its premises is safe for banking business. To my fellow law students at unec, i have one thing for una- we dey read law. Thanks to barr. Ukwueze, barr. Asogwa. U guys are the best. Thanks

@lionspot read my post n do ur research on legal cases on this particular issue....i studied banking n in banking law u must always come across this particular issue in practice of banking....case of balmora supermarket....its a precedent...THE BANK WILL NOT BE LIABLE.....as long as the cash has not been received and teller stamped....

For those claiming the bank should be held liable because they have a foreseeable duty of care to provide security on their premises, if this is true, question is, what laws established this "duty to care"? I mean is the bank bound by specific laws to "mandatory" provide security at their premises? I'm just curious because I'm no lawyer but I want to know the answer.

Maafiaalady: @lionspot read my post n do ur research on legal cases on this particular issue....i studied banking n in banking law u must always come across this particular issue in practice of banking....case of balmora supermarket....its a precedent...THE BANK WILL NOT BE LIABLE.....as long as the cash has not been received and teller stamped....

This is not about banking law specific, your banking law is a branch from common law. Common law is the barometer of services and contract law. In any commercial civil case that are services, you must apply common law, the issue here before us whether the customer is a licensee or invitee, this customer is clearly a licensee since their there to transact business, thus they are owe duty of care, and since robbery is a foreseeable occurence at a bank, the bank should make extra care to protect its customer. My conclusion is based on the info. presented here. Read Ranson v. Kitner, precedent case

manny4life: For those claiming the bank should be held liable because they have a foreseeable duty of care to provide security on their premises, if this is true, question is, what laws established this "duty to care"? I mean is the bank bound by specific laws to "mandatory" provide security at their premises? I'm just curious because I'm no lawyer but I want to know the answer.

The answer is TORT LAW, under Negligence, proximate cause and foreability.

Legit: This is not about banking law specific, your banking law is a branch from common law. The common law in the barometer. In any commercial civil case that are services, you must apply common law, the issue here before us whether the customer is a licensee and invitee, this customer is clearly a licensee since their there to transact business, thus they are owe duty of care, and since robbery is a foreseeable occurence at a bank, the bank should make extra care to protect its customer. My conclusion is based on the info. presented here.

banks make it a point of duty to protect their premises against armed robbers. Because the banks lose more than the customers. For a every kobo robbers rob customers do you know how they take from the bank coffers? Moreover armed robbers don't go to bank premises to rob customers they can trail and rob. They go for the bank's billions

So what if u find urself in a long queue waiting for hours just to deposit like that annoying bank called Gtbank?

stekyskydon: in banking law dis issue is governed in d topic "at wat point do risk pass to the bank regarding customers moni. It is a very complicated issue nd had been discussed by many sch of thought nd scholars. D current position is once you can provide d bank teller showing dat the moni has been deposited den d bank is liable for the moni if stolen. In some banks the customers wil stil b wit d moni in d counter while a teller has been issued.. It is immaterial dat the bank staff has not touched the moni. Anyoda situation aside dis.. D bank is nt liable.

how is d bank liable when the money has not been counted and verified?

Legit: The answer is COMMON LAW, under contract.

be here and be running your mouth. Pray u don't witness bank robbery when u are in the bank's premises. What if they shoot and kill you, the bank will claim your corpse as well? Dumb law student. Do u think armed robbers care what you are studying?

me_for_you: banks make it a point of duty to protect their premises against armed robbers. Because the banks lose more than the customers. For a every kobo robbers rob customers do you know how they take from the bank coffers? Moreover armed robbers don't go to bank premises to rob customers they can trail and rob. They go for the bank's billions

It does not matter, bank owe duty to its customer, they know the type of business they are in. But of course, all this must be proving

me_for_you: be here and be running your mouth. Pray u don't witness bank robbery when u are in the bank's premises. What if they shoot and kill you, the bank will claim your corpse as well? Dumb law student. Do u think armed robbers care what you are studying?

No insult please, only the fact. If that happen, my family will sue the bank and win under TORT Law. Just the Law.

Banks are not answerable to money not yet collected and verified by their representative,the cashier and duly stamped teller and signed by him acting on behalf of the bank. Until this is done,customer hold the responsibility of keeping his money safe. This is in the case of cash deposit. In case of withdrawal,when the amount is debited from the account,d withdrawal form stamped 'paid' and the amount place on the counter for customer to verify,the bank is no more responsible. Think of it,if the bank is responsible for stolen money in the premises,who is responsible for inside the house and on the streets? The bank premises is vulnerable to robbery attack just like any other place in the society.

Legit: No insult please, only the fact. If that happen, my family will sue the bank and win under TORT Law. Just the Law.

i sincerely think you need to spread ur tentacles......read d OPs post again...sorry to say this but ur knowledge of law is VERY NARROW....YOU WILL NEVER WIN THE CASE UNDER LAW OF TORT...should such occur and u sue d bank...quote me anywhere...Case closed!!!

Maafiaalady: i sincerely think you need to spread ur tentacles......read d OPs post again...sorry to say this but ur knowledge of law is VERY NARROW....YOU WILL NEVER WIN THE CASE UNDER LAW OF TORT...should such occur and u sue d bank...quote me anywhere...Case closed!!!

Obviously you're a layman who doesn't understand the law. Law is not about emotion, its strickly fact only. Read a precedent case of Ranson v. kintner. IF I ARGUE THE CASE, I WILL WIN HANDS DOWN, IT WILL NEVER GO TO TRIAL, AS THE BANK ATTORNEY WILL SETTLE, THEY WILL SEE THE WRITING ON THE WALL. Assume the bank fail their duty to their customer.

If u were rob at home wil u sue ur landlord?if u were rob on d street,wil u sue d owner(name) of d street?

kaka22: If you know that you have facts as regard the question, don't just view; make sure you comment.

I beg to differ with those that are saying that the Bank owes the Customer a duty of care, raising a plea of duty of care would only be a viable option if the customer's money is already in the bank's care and since you are yet to deposit the money, the bank will not be found liable for the breach of the duty of care, because no contractual transaction has taken place as seen from the facts here, there is no offer, acceptance, consideration and other elements which would have made the contract valid. However, as regards this issue, one may likely sue the bank for not making it's premises safe enough to prevent robbery being a forceable risk.
Legally, even though the bank could be blamed in this case, one needs to know that the court will try to help the bank in this situation because if this was allowed, so many people will utilise this opportunity and make serious demand from the bank,that is, a customer who brought #2k to the bank may likely tell the court that he brought #200k to the bank. So, this particular kind of case may not carry weight in the court of law. (speaking from the angle of Nigerian law of tort, contract and banking)

y am i takin my moni to d bamk in d first place?...security.

Baba Oyee!:
Banks are not answerable to money not yet collected and verified by their representative,the cashier and duly stamped teller and signed by him acting on behalf of the bank. Until this is done,customer hold the responsibility of keeping his money safe. This is in the case of cash deposit. In case of withdrawal,when the amount is debited from the account,d withdrawal form stamped 'paid' and the amount place on the counter for customer to verify,the bank is no more responsible. Think of it,if the bank is responsible for stolen money in the premises,who is responsible for inside the house and on the streets? The bank premises is vulnerable to robbery attack just like any other place in the society.

You're right in theory, but WRONG in Law. The law applies what is called common law to civil case other than goods. The street is open to everyone, the bank is open only to anyone that have business there. The bank is a commercial establishment therefore give ppl license to come in, thus must protect anyone in their premises, whether the money is deposit or not. The fact as stated is Licensee is owe extra protection, as matter of law. That is why you have security in shops, bank, and office building, to show they have protection. The issue is not about the money collected, the issue is about the licensee customer.

Smily202: hehehehehe if ur moni is yet to be deposited n u lost it........its gone....bye. ...

You're wrong, the bank insurance will pay if u fight with good lawyer

[color=#990000][/color] money @ur hand z @ur own risk....even if u r inside d bank.....d one bank z afta z d one alreay in ur acct