Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 12.04.1984 2325/83 AI generated

Bank deposit transfer rejected because bank law rules do not apply to time-limited deposits with withdrawal conditions.

Case Number Vaasan HO 12.04.1984 2325/83
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the bank's claim to refuse payment to the new holder of a time-limited deposit. The bank argued that negotiable instrument laws applied, but the court found these rules inapplicable because the deposit was subject to a specific withdrawal condition requiring a certificate endorsement. Consequently, the bank could not rely on transfer rules to deny payment to the transferee.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Bank Act s. 17; Negotiable Instruments Act s. 32: Negotiable instrument provisions do not apply to time-limited deposits where payment is conditional upon a certificate endorsement, preventing the holder from claiming rights against the bank without the original certificate.

Keywords

AI generated
time-limited deposit withdrawal condition certificate endorsement negotiable instrument law bank transfer rules deposit holder rights payment refusal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Bank Act s. 17
Negotiable Instruments Act s. 32

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1933-II-94
KKO:1933-II-94, KKO:1961-II-5, KKO:1966-II-19
KKO:1961-II-5
KKO:1933-II-94, KKO:1961-II-5, KKO:1966-II-19
KKO:1966-II-19
KKO:1933-II-94, KKO:1961-II-5, KKO:1966-II-19
AI generated
kko-precedent_1992_188
Supreme Court allows bank to use time deposit as primary security despite secondary intent argument.
appeal_1983_kouvola__732
Court dismisses fraud charge where defendant used credit card to make purchases exceeding available funds.
kko-precedent_1995_24
Supreme Court acquits one defendant on fraud but sentences the other to 60 days imprisonment for loan fraud.
kko-precedent_1993_167
Supreme Court allows return of payment for expired bill when bank failed to prove claim under bill of exchange law.
kko-precedent_1991_151
Guarantor liable for new loan guarantees not explicitly covered by original guarantee contract terms.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Pankki oli ottanut määräaikaistalletuksen vastaan ehdolla, että talletus voitiin maksaa takaisin ainoastaan talletustodistukseen tehtävää kuittausmerkintää vastaan. Pankin oikeuteen tehdä väitteitä todistuksen uutta haltijaa vastaan sovellettiin velkakirjalain 32 §:n mukaan juoksevaa velkakirjaa koskevia säännöksiä. Pankki ei voinut perustaa kieltäytymistään maksaa talletusta siirronsaajalle siihen, ettei pankille pankkilain 17 §:n mukaisesti ollut ilmoitettu talletustodistuksen siirrosta.

Ks. Aurejärvi, Erkki: Velkakirja, vekseli ja shekki, 1979, ss. 88-89

Hakulinen, Y.J.: Velkakirjalaki, 1965, ss. 187-188

Vrt. KKO:1933-II-94, KKO:1961-II-5, KKO:1966-II-19

I-jaosto

Lainvoimainen