Tort and Bad Boy

Topics: Tort, Judicial remedies, Punitive damages Pages: 17 (3317 words) Published: February 25, 2013
Piec vs. Caisse d’economie polonaise (p. 59) (MIDTERM 2)

Grandma = Stephania Wojcicka
Bad Boy = nephew Tadeusz Wojcicki
Niece (Margaret Wojcicka) is executor of will

|Facts |Three mandates: | | |Gma goes on extended trip, gives power of attorney for banking matters to Bad Boy | | |Niece has mandate as executor of the will (mandate only kicks in when Gma dies) | | |Bank has mandate for Gma’s finances | | |Grandma’s bank account summary: $5 membership, $1k term deposit, $26k term deposit (can’t take out until | | |26-Oct-92 or wil receive no interest) | | |Bank didn’t k6now Gma was dead when Bad Boy removed funds | |Question |Was bank guilty of not [2138] exercising prudence and diligence for its [2130] mandate? | | |Does the valid mandate authorize the bank to give the term deposits (no) | | |What effect should be given to the letter of july 1st (none) | | |Did the bank owe obligation to grandma, and not rely on the letter (yes, 2138) | |Ratio |1. Argument: Bank is a special type of agent, v. strong fiduciary duties; if they’ve been defrauded they are 100%| | |liable. Answer: Bank should have been more [2138] prudent and diligent; it wasn’t prudent cash out the account, | | |and the bank wasn’t diligent in its duty as agent to let funds be taken out before interest accrued. | |Decision |Bank guilty, has to pay missing funds to estate |

Bank did not act with reasonable care
Obligation that the bank has – they have a contract (mandate) bank was the agent (pay to the order of example) MANDATES
Dowell vs. Notary Hay-Ellis (p. 64) (MIDTERM 2)

Joseph: bad credit
Dr. Dowell: good credit, so owns building for Joseph
Notary Hay-Ellis: not paying attention to pay-outs for building maintenance

|Facts |Dr worried about paying for his insurance, etc. so gives mandate to J to pay for mortgage (from Dr’s money held | | |with notary) | | |Dr says your mandate is to make sure only administration us done | | |But J spends money (released by Notary) without heeding his mandate | | |Notary releasing money to J because notary says it’s really J’s money | | |Dr says it doesn’t matter, Notary’s mandate was to give money to J to pay for administration | |Question |1. Was notary guilty of not [2138] exercising prudence and diligence for his [2130] mandate from the Dr? | |Ratio |1. Argument: notary says it’s really J’s money, so he could release the Dr’s funds to J whenever J wanted. [p. | | |68, last sentence] Notary must exercise his duties with “prudence and diligence.” Answer: Notary’s mandate was | | |to release Dr’s money only for building expenses, so notary was not diligent when releasing funds to J for | | |amounts that clearly weren’t for the...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Torts Essay
  • Bad Boys Essay
  • Bad Boys Essay
  • Tort Essay
  • Negligence As A Tort Essay
  • Torts Essay
  • Tort Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free