Post by n***@gmail.comWe've read that in olden-days they used to declare
bank-holidays to prevent/delay USA national banking
disasters.
Not only in olden days. Recent examples of this sort of thing can
be cited in the USA as can examples of comparable events now ongoing
in numerous other places in the world.
Post by n***@gmail.comWas this a mechanism to achieve a result without flouting
the LETTER of the law?
In the USA in the so called 'Great Depression' of the mid to late
1800s and again in the 1930s, some courts ruled that some 'bank
holidays' flouted the law and others ruled that this sort of thing was
achieved without flouting the law.
As elsewhere in the world, there have been competing debates
about what 'law' means in general societal emergency circumstances,
about how to define and, probably more importantly, who gets to define
what are emergency circumstances such that there is no flouting, etc.
Post by n***@gmail.comEg. that statute made it illegal for the bank/s to say
"sorry we can't give you your money today, but it might
be better tomorrow"; whereas the authorities could achieve
the same result, without disobeying the statute/s, by declaring
a bank-holiday?
Except that you do not identify what statute where made it
illegal for bank/s to say 'sorry we can't give you your money today,
etc." this Eg. is a partly reasonable one.
And and also however, depending on the times and places and on
the other relevant circumstances of the acts of the relevant parties
and of others who also may be relevant, there could be any number of
other Eg.s.
But your Eg. is only partly reasonable insofar as you premise it
as an apparent even if not stated related Eg. you assume follows from
your introductory framing question whereas the considerations
summarized above require 'unpacking' of that question if one is
serious in soliciting intellectually helpful analysis.
Eg., whether in a religious law influenced or governed society or
in a civil law influenced or governed sovereignty or democracy or
version of a democratic republic, etc., there might not be any
flouting of preexisting law associated with a 'bank holiday' or like
scenario if applicable law already included some combination of
constitutional or equivalent charter and interpreters thereof or
legislative or judicially arrived at law that accounted for a bank
holiday like approach.
Nor does your use of a slogan like 'flouting the law' even
remotely begin to address issues of and associated with sanctions or
remedies made or not made available for whatever is the 'flouting' you
have in mind even if and when there is such, among other ambiguities
of your posting.
Post by n***@gmail.comIs it recognised in law yet, that the same tricks are applicable
by banks placing hurdles of inconvenience, eg. on out-of-town
clients, who may easily be manipulated to delay their 'demand
on the bank' because of the cost of having to schedule the
'demand'.
By 'tricks' do you mean some sort of fraudulent or otherwise
deceptive statements that conceal from bank customers the banks'
self-anticipated claim that they may achieve ends by the means to
which you so obliquely refer?
Or do you use 'tricks' as a word to mischaracterize terms and
conditions to stated in and to which the customer has agreed?
Or might the word 'trick' accurately signify what a customer has
agreed with a bank as stated in the bank with customer agreement to
anticipate and try moot in advance claims in otherwise borderline
circumstances?
These sorts of questions are not intended to suggest that banks
never take advantage of customers' ignorance or, as too frequently
occurs, customer laziness and indifference to reading and
understanding what prerogatives the customers have ceded to a bank and
also are not intended to suggest that too many banks do not disregard
even clearly stated provisions of law when they deem it in their self
interest to do so.
Nor are these questions or related comments intended to deflect
from the common probably to the point of being almost generally
prevailing reality that the answer to the question of who on balance
most has and has effectively used to their own advantage the economic
and related political means to purchase laws amenable to them is easy
accurately to answer.
Post by n***@gmail.comEg. by costs of having to travel to the bank.
The banks can deliberately withhold information, which will
prevent/delay 'demands' by the clients.
Oh yes, I think this is called "concealment" in law?
Sometimes, Yes, and, sometimes, No and, most of the time,
determining in disputed cases whether there is or is not whatever you
meant by concealment in law will depend on the particular facts of the
case.
Post by n***@gmail.comOf course the bank automation, acknowledges this very
same inconvenience cost. But has law, been instituted to
prevent abuse of this inconvenience cost?
There is something of an excluded middle assumption to this
question, namely, when the customer _has_ agreed that the bank may do
what it is that the bank does but what the customer has agreed to is
to be abused.
Post by n***@gmail.comAgain, this is analagous to the rules re. respondents-who-
make-themselve-unavailable-for summons-serving.
So I suspect that it should have all been provided for.
Nothing you said and asked about 'bank holidays' and about banks
and customers more generally is analogous to the rules re. respondents
who make themselves unavailable for summons serving.
Post by n***@gmail.comPlease cite some pointers.
There is as you know a vast body of jurisprudential text written
and compiled by jurisprudes and philosophers of many different
viewpoints, of judicial rulings in British Commonwealth influenced
law, in US law, in continental European law, in versions of the former
USSR's combination of all of these and of religious influenced law, in
Chinese law, in the religious influenced and in some countries still
prevalent religion institution governed law, etc, etc.
Because you know this even if you make it appear you have not
begun in any serious way a study of any such texts, your comments and
questions here are neither serious nor meaningfully answerable in
specific substantive ways.
Still, to take some examples of USA legal history as influenced
by British law, you would do well to read the US court of appeals
decision in Opera Co. of Boston v. Wolf Trap Foundation, 817 F. 2d
1094 (4th Cir. 1987), providing that you also read Dermott v. Jones (2
Wall.), 69 U.S. 1 (1864), and the lead British case dealing with many
of the principles which underlie your query, Taylor v. Caldwell, 3 B.
& S. 826, 122 Eng.Rep. 309, 324, 6 R.C. 603 (1863), and the other
decisions cited and discussed in the Wolf Trap case and a fair
sampling of other rulings in the jurisdictions of interest to you that
deal with whether or not 'force majeure' or 'Act of God' conditions
may be said to be 'implied' in contracts if, as has become
increasingly less common, such an 'impossibility' of performance or
other like 'out' is not included as a stated contractual term.