T wo Co urt o f Appe a l c a se s Pe e ka y I nte rma rk v - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

t wo co urt o f appe a l c a se s pe e ka y i nte rma rk
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

T wo Co urt o f Appe a l c a se s Pe e ka y I nte rma rk v - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

T wo Co urt o f Appe a l c a se s Pe e ka y I nte rma rk v Austra lia & Ne w Ze a la nd Ba nking Gro up in 2006 Spring we ll Na vig a tio n v JP Mo rg a n Cha se Ba nk in 2010 So me c o mme nta to rs ha ve de sc rib e d


slide-1
SLIDE 1
slide-2
SLIDE 2

 T

wo Co urt o f Appe a l c a se s

 Pe e ka y I

nte rma rk v Austra lia & Ne w Ze a la nd Ba nking Gro up in 2006

 Spring we ll Na vig a tio n v JP Mo rg a n

Cha se Ba nk in 2010

slide-3
SLIDE 3

 So me c o mme nta to rs ha ve de sc rib e d

the c o nc e pt a s unso und

 Philo so phy o f “do c ume nta ry

funda me nta lism”

 “A myth”

slide-4
SLIDE 4

 I

nve sto r a nd b a nk e nte r into fina nc ia l tra nsa c tio n

 Ba nk inse rts pro visio ns tha t minimise its

po te ntia l lia b ility

 I

nve sto r is pre c lude d b y e sto ppe l fro m de nying the pro visio ns

slide-5
SLIDE 5

 T

hre e c o mmo n c la use s

 No re spo nsib ility c la use s e g no

a dviso ry duty

 No re pre se nta tio n a nd no re lia nc e

c la use s

 E

ntire a g re e me nt c la use s

slide-6
SLIDE 6

 F

re e do m o f c o ntra c t

 Ce rta inty a nd fina lity  No t ta king a dva nta g e o f wro ng

slide-7
SLIDE 7

 L

a c k o f c a pa c ity to e nte r into tra nsa c tio ns

 But c la use in fra me wo rk a g re e me nt

g a ve rise to c o ntra c tua l e sto ppe l

slide-8
SLIDE 8

 Wo rding o f the c la use s limits the ir

  • pe ra tio n a s to

› Sc o pe , › T ime , a nd › Purpo se

slide-9
SLIDE 9

 De c isio n o f Andre w Smith J  Wo rding limite d to da te o f a c q uisitio n

whe re a s a lle g a tio n o f ne g lig e nc e la te r

 Wo rding limite d to spe c ific purpo se

slide-10
SLIDE 10

 E

ntire Ag re e me nt c la use did no t impa c t o n c la ims fo r misre pre se nta tio n

 No re lia nc e c la use o nly re la te d to

inve stme nt a dvic e , no t o the r re pre se nta tio ns

slide-11
SLIDE 11

 Pub lic po lic y a nd sta tute  Will no t b a r a fra ud c la im  I

mpa c t o f UCT A 1977 a nd Misre pre se nta tio n Ac t 1967

slide-12
SLIDE 12

 T

wo diffic ultie s with UCT A

 I

f c la use de fine s b a sis o f re la tio nship the n o utside UCT A

 I

f c la use re a so na b le the n sa tisfie s UCT A

slide-13
SLIDE 13

 F

ine line b e twe e n b a sis c la use s a nd e xc lusio n c la use s

 Do e s c la use re write histo ry o r pa rt

c o mpa ny with re a lity?

 Ra iffe se n v RBS  T

ho rnb ridg e v Ba rc la ys Ba nk

slide-14
SLIDE 14

 I

mplic a tio ns fo r o the r c o ntra c tua l c o nte xts a nd wide ra ng e o f c la use s

slide-15
SLIDE 15

 Re stric tive c o ve na nt in e mplo yme nt

c o ntra c t

 Arg ua b le tha t pub lic po lic y re stric te d

pa rtie s’ fre e do m o f c o ntra c t

 T

he re fo re no summa ry judg me nt

slide-16
SLIDE 16

 De c la ra tio n tha t mo ne y b o rro we d fo r

b usine ss o f b o rro we r suc h tha t lo a n po te ntia lly unre g ula te d

 E

sto ppe l a rg ume nt b a se d o n de c la ra tio n fa ile d b e c a use c o uld no t c o ntra c t o ut o f pro te c tio ns o f the Co nsume r Cre dit Ac t

slide-17
SLIDE 17

 Do c trine he re to sta y  L

imits ye t to b e fully de fine d

 Mo re c a se s like ly a s limits te ste d