A husband who failed to disclose that his signature had been forged by his wife was estopped for asserting the forgery against his bank.
The relationship between a bank and its customer is a continuing one and therefore involves a continuing duty on either side to act with reasonable care to ensure the proper operation of the account.
A claimant who, as a result of being able to rely on estoppel, succeeds on a cause of action on which, without being able to rely on it, he would necessarily have failed, may be able to recover more than the actual damage suffered by him as a result of the representation which gave rise to it.
Scrutton LJ
[1932] 1 KB 371
England and Wales
Cited by:
Affirmed – Greenwood v Martins Bank Ltd HL 1932
The plaintiff had an account with the defendant bank. His wife forged his signature on four cheques, drew out all the money in the account, and lent it to her sister. The plaintiff on discovering the facts did not at once inform the bank, but about . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Estoppel
Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.356586
