NedBank scam?!

[no.to...@gmail.com]

Who else has had similar problems with SA banks ?

Newsgroups: misc.legal,us.legal
Subject: Re (2): What is Court attitide to chance-takers?
References: <jg0s58lsslvt4ag4m...@4ax.com>

In article <jg0s58lsslvt4ag4m...@4ax.com>, terri sias <terr...@earthsplink.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:11:33 +0000 (UTC), no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >What's the principle/s in law which determines Courts'
> >attitude to respondents who try to escape their obligations
> >by creating/finding extra hurdles for the claimants?
>
> This is less a question than it is a truism. As such, it is
> basically self answering. It is correct is it not that your premises
> for this question only in form include that you use the word
> "obligations" as if to mean a duty of some kind that is properly
> enforceable by a court and that you use the word "extra" to indicate
> that the not particularly described hurdles the respondent creates
> lack factual and legal merit or are completely irrelevant? If so,
> then the attitude of most judges in all likelihood would be law
> constrained annoyance at the respondent reflected for the same law
> supported reasons in a judgment directing the respondent comply with
> his obligations. And if the hurdles the respondent creates do lack
> factual merit and are not supported by any reasonably made legal
> argument and the law in the jurisdiction provides for this, that could
> also influence a court to order sanctions against the respondent
> perhaps including a requirement that would not otherwise be present
> that he reimburse the claimant for its attorneys fees in addition to
> the grant to claimant of the underlying relief.
>
> >How would this work in your jurisdiction:-
> >* client has 13 month fixed deposit with BANK,
> >and receives letter in Oct 2010 [details not on hand]
> > <your deposit matures next month>.
> >* client attends BANK in Dec 2010, with duplicated letter:
> > <close my account and pay out in US$-draft>.
> >* bank official says <you can't just take your money; didn't
> > you get our letter?>.
>
> Three Major But Missing Facts Alert -
> 1. You do not post what the bank's and client's agreement specifies

Because I want YOU to indicate that/if that is the key.
>
> about when and in what form the principal plus any then accrued
> interest less any agreed and then due charges shall be paid to or may
> legitimately be withheld from the client.
> 2. You did not post the Oct 2010 letter's rationale that you imply
> was later reflected in what the bank official said in Dec 2010.
> 3. You do not say where the transactions occurred despite often

Because I asked how it's in YOUR jurisdiction.
>
> different principles of law that may apply in different places in the
> world so that you prevent _relevant_ comparison with prevailing
> attitudes and rulings of courts elsewhere.
>
> >* client say: <OK: just sign and stamp my copy of my written
> >instructions, and we'll correspond by e-mail>
>
> Unlike what you go on to quote the bank as saying, what the bank
> and its client said to one another shall be their preferred mode of
> communication appears to be an extraneous detail.
>
Yes, but many readers want the folksie details, which give the vital
clues, which I want to see it they can detect.
>
> >* client receives email: --- ...
> >> As per the Terms & Conditions which we have on file with your opening
> >> Documents for this Fixed Deposit Investment that you opened on the 5th
> >> of August 2008. Point 8.2 of the Terms & Conditions state that:
> >> The penalty fee shall be calculated by using the following formula: 1/10
> >> of the interest rate [ with a minimum of 1% (one percent)] x capital x
> >> the unexpired term to redemption.
>
> Assuming that this is what you are trying to ask about despite your
> opaqueness, the attitude of the courts in my jurisdiction about
> whether the bank was trying to extract a not agreed to fee and about
> whether the client was or was not trying to trying to escape an
> obligation to pay an agreed fee would be determinable only if, instead
> of only vaguely hinting at which it might be, you had posted the
> answer to the following question -
>
No, I believe it was neither of those 2.
Doesn't the "extraneous detail" indicate that the extra-fee-demand
was JUST a fall-back-position?
>
> Does the bank's email correctly paraphrase a client obligation to pay
> this fee in the circumstances about which you post that shall be
> computed as the email states? IOW, saying as you so only that the
> bank made such a demand does not tell anyone whether it was correct to
> do so. Nor do you identify any hurdle the client found or created
> beyond perhaps trying to imply that the client does not want to pay
> and may not have paid the requested fee.
>
> >------------------------------------
> >* the bank phoned and told that <they were not going to charge>
> > which phone call can NOT be proved, by the client.
>
> Do you mean that the call can not be proved by the client because the
> client does not recall that there was such a conversation or that the
> client remembers that there was but does not remember what each of the
> participants thereto said to one another? Or do you mean that the
> call can not be proved by the client because there is a zipper clause
> in the parties' agreement or a Parol Evidence rule of law in the
> jurisdiction by reason of which a court would not allow the client to
> present extrinsic evidence such as what was said in a telephone
> conversation that contradicts or in some material way modifies the
> terms & conditions of the parties' contract?
>
Unlike the instruction letter, and subsequent emails, the
call was not <mechanically recorded> as proof.
>
> In my jurisdiction, such contractual provisions and also legislation
> as generally construed and applied by the courts generally would
> require a Yes answer to the second of these questions if it is the one
> that most applies to the transaction about which you post so that an
> answer to the first of these questions would be moot even if it
> included the client's detailed recitation of what was said in the
> telephone conversation.
>
I'll search for <the second and first of these questions> and see if
I can decode your answer.
>
> >* futher emails are:---
> >Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:35 PM
> >Your letter dated 28 December 2010 refers: -
> >Dorrieon confirmed via telephone that the funds were released
> >on 31 December 2010.
> >In term of your request for a draft and travellers cheques Henry did
> >request for you to come to the branch to complete the necessary forms.
> >This is a requirement when funds are being taken of the country.
> >We urge you to come to the branch to finalise your request and also
> >refer to the email that was send by Henry on the 6th of January 2011.
> >(see confirmation below)
> >-----
> >Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:06 PM
> >We could not process your request for a draft and traveller's cheques as
> >you could not be reached to set up an appointment to come to the
> >branch to allow you to sign the necessary documentation.
> >------------ end of record of evidence collected:---
> >
> >I won't comment on my opinion, which might taint an outsider's
> >view. The client suffered damages by being denied the ability to
> >transact, and the exchange rate has moved against him, in the meanwhile.
>
> You do not post any information at all about whether the bank was
> not correct in saying what it did about its not wanting to provide the
> client with whatever may be the requested draft and travellers
> cheques.
>
That sentence is difficult to parse.
I don't intend to <say that/if the bank is not correct>.
I give the facts, and ask YOU to judge.
>
> Very probably more basically, assuming that it is true that the
> exchange rate moved against the client since whichever of the
> different dates you confusingly do not make clear is the most
> operative one and why it is that - Jan 6, 2011? Feb 2, 2011? Apr 13,
> 2011? other? - there nonetheless is _not_ _anything_ in your posting
> that supports and certainly not anything that requires concluding that
> whatever you refer to as the sum of damages that the client suffered
> resulted from - that is, was caused in _any_ way by - anything the
> bank had agreed or was required by applicable law to do that the bank
> did not do.
>
I just mentioned the damages, for the readers who can't see
that "a bank refusing to give YOUR money" is outrageous.
>
> Because, in summary, you do not actually post any facts that would
> show a wrongful act on the bank's part _and_ do not make clear exactly
> what the parties' dispute is _and_ also do not post anything whatever
> about what you have in mind as hurdles that have been created/found by
> the client of any nature and not only hurdles that are extra, the
> attitude of a court in my jurisdiction in response to your posting
> would be annoyance at being asked to determine a presently not
> described and therefore indeterminable dispute assuming that there is
> some sort of dispute.
>
My simple mind says:
* the client planned a sequence of steps, which were prevented
by the bank.
* consequently the client suffered damages, because the bank refused
[initially] to <give the money>.
* the bank's initial reasons for refusal were incrementally withdrawn.

Would the bank have changed the reasons for their refusal from
1. "no you can't have YOUR money", to
2. "there is a penalty for withdrawal", to
3. "OK, we won't charge you, but you must 'complete the necessary forms'"
just to please me?