their right agints this bank?

[arsto]

Good evening

just i have qustion about the right of those two persons the father and son?

JACK had one son, TOM, studying in UK. Together with tom he opened a joint current account with XYZ Bank, Regent Street Branch, deposited £4,000 in the account and included in the mandate, among other things, the following:
1- Either JACK or TOM may solely sign cheques.
2- Any single cheque drawn by TOM must not exceed £500.
3- TOM may not draw any amount or amounts totalling more than £2000 in any single month inclusive of all his monetary demands for the month.
During June 1985, TOM issued the following 7 cheques, bearing different dates, but all of which were presented to the bank for payment in June 1985 and the bank paid them all, each upon presentation:

i) A cheque dated 1 June 1985 for £300;
ii) A cheque dated 5 June 1985 for £250;
iii) A cheque dated 6 June 1985 for £500;
iv) A cheque dated 12 June 1985 for £550;
v) A cheque dated 16 June 1985 for £200;
vi) A cheque dated 20 June 1985 for £150;
vii) A cheque dated 2 JULY 1985 for £250;

JACK visited London on the 30 June 1985, and went shopping from next day morning, using a second cheque book on the same joint account. A day later he received a phone call from his favourite shopping store, Harrods, that his £2000 cheque, dated 1 July 1985, which he made payable to Harrods on that day (1 July 1985), has bounced (returned dishonoured) for “insufficient funds” on his balance according to notes stamped by the bank on the returned cheque.

What can you Advice jack and tom on their rights if any against xyz Bank?

[>Charlotte<]

This site is for U.S. law only.

[Stevef]

Take your choice of answers:

#1) We don't do other people's homework

#2) US Law Only

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by arsto

Good evening

just i have qustion about the right of those two persons the father and son?

JACK had one son, TOM, studying in UK. Together with tom he opened a joint current account with XYZ Bank, Regent Street Branch, deposited £4,000 in the account and included in the mandate, among other things, the following:
1- Either JACK or TOM may solely sign cheques.
2- Any single cheque drawn by TOM must not exceed £500.
3- TOM may not draw any amount or amounts totalling more than £2000 in any single month inclusive of all his monetary demands for the month.
During June 1985, TOM issued the following 7 cheques, bearing different dates, but all of which were presented to the bank for payment in June 1985 and the bank paid them all, each upon presentation:

i) A cheque dated 1 June 1985 for £300;
ii) A cheque dated 5 June 1985 for £250;
iii) A cheque dated 6 June 1985 for £500;
iv) A cheque dated 12 June 1985 for £550;
v) A cheque dated 16 June 1985 for £200;
vi) A cheque dated 20 June 1985 for £150;
vii) A cheque dated 2 JULY 1985 for £250;

JACK visited London on the 30 June 1985, and went shopping from next day morning, using a second cheque book on the same joint account. A day later he received a phone call from his favourite shopping store, Harrods, that his £2000 cheque, dated 1 July 1985, which he made payable to Harrods on that day (1 July 1985), has bounced (returned dishonoured) for “insufficient funds” on his balance according to notes stamped by the bank on the returned cheque.

What can you Advice jack and tom on their rights if any against xyz Bank?

I would suggest that they should not have waited 24 years to act on this matter

US Law Only