Spelling suggestions: "subject:"endender liability"" "subject:"wendender liability""
1 |
Die umweltrechtliche Zustandsverantwortlichkeit : Rechtsgrund und Reichweite ; eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung unter Berücksichtigung der Zustandsverantwortlichkeit gesicherter Kreditgeber /Tollmann, Claus. January 2007 (has links) (PDF)
Univ., Diss.-2006--Jena, 2005. / Literaturverz. S. [622] - 644.
|
2 |
Aspects of banker liability : disclosure and other duties of bankers towards customers and suretiesVan Rensburg, Hermanus Lourens Jansen 01 January 2002 (has links)
Suretyships given in favour of banks are being challenged in the courts on the basis of equitable doctrines of unconscionable conduct, undue influence, or statutory provisions dealing with unfair conduct or unfair contract terms.
This thesis is an enquiry into a bank's duties of disclosure or advice to an intending surety. Such an investigation also necessitates a study of the relationship between banker and customer, as the surety is quite often a customer of the bank as well, and, as a surety's obligation to the bank is an accessory obligation, the obligation is dependent on a valid principal obligation between the bank and the principal debtor - the customer.
The face of modern banking has, however, changed dramatically and most major banks have become multi-functional. As a result, the banker-customer relationship may often be seen as a fiduciary relationship. A major problem brought about my multi-functioning banks is that of conflicts of interest between the bank and its customer. Furthermore, the banker-customer relationship is providing much more scope for lender liability than in the past.
Various factors are currently having an impact on the law of contract, and this is expected to affect the legal policy makers in their assessments of whether a duty of disclosure of material facts exits or not.
A surety has long been a favoured debtor in the eyes of the law, and the courts have developed a plethora of technical principles on which a surety can be relieved of his obligation. The escape routes of the surety, especially if he is a consumer as well, on the new grounds of public policy, unconscionability, good faith or unreasonableness, are growing. The results of these trends is the expected demise of suretyship as an acceptable, cheap form of debt security in the banking sector. / Jurisprudence / LL.D.
|
3 |
Aspects of banker liability : disclosure and other duties of bankers towards customers and suretiesVan Rensburg, Hermanus Lourens Jansen 01 January 2002 (has links)
Suretyships given in favour of banks are being challenged in the courts on the basis of equitable doctrines of unconscionable conduct, undue influence, or statutory provisions dealing with unfair conduct or unfair contract terms.
This thesis is an enquiry into a bank's duties of disclosure or advice to an intending surety. Such an investigation also necessitates a study of the relationship between banker and customer, as the surety is quite often a customer of the bank as well, and, as a surety's obligation to the bank is an accessory obligation, the obligation is dependent on a valid principal obligation between the bank and the principal debtor - the customer.
The face of modern banking has, however, changed dramatically and most major banks have become multi-functional. As a result, the banker-customer relationship may often be seen as a fiduciary relationship. A major problem brought about my multi-functioning banks is that of conflicts of interest between the bank and its customer. Furthermore, the banker-customer relationship is providing much more scope for lender liability than in the past.
Various factors are currently having an impact on the law of contract, and this is expected to affect the legal policy makers in their assessments of whether a duty of disclosure of material facts exits or not.
A surety has long been a favoured debtor in the eyes of the law, and the courts have developed a plethora of technical principles on which a surety can be relieved of his obligation. The escape routes of the surety, especially if he is a consumer as well, on the new grounds of public policy, unconscionability, good faith or unreasonableness, are growing. The results of these trends is the expected demise of suretyship as an acceptable, cheap form of debt security in the banking sector. / Jurisprudence / LL.D.
|
4 |
Sustainability-environmental risks and legal liabilities of South African banks / Johannes Hendrik CoetzeeCoetzee, Johannes Hendrik January 2013 (has links)
In the environmental context banks face direct, indirect and reputational risks from their
internal operations and their external business activities. The current specific focus on
the protection of the environment makes it essential for banks and their directors to be
aware and stay on top of potential risks and liabilities. This is especially so because
banks’ directors can be criminally prosecuted for environmental crimes. The application
and effect of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) on persons
convicted of an environmental crime or crimes has been identified as a possible new or
added risk for banks and their directors. Banks in addition to their normal environmental
risk and liabilities also need to contend with the possibility of lender liability. Existing
legislation pertinent to lender liability does not expressly or specifically deal with lender
liability. Absence of judgements on lender liability further exacerbates the risks and the
uncertainty for banks in South Africa. Therefore, banks remain subject to legal
uncertainty and associated risks. The issue of lender liability specifically with regard to
the implication of “the person in control” requires clarification. Hence, it is recommended
that legislation relevant to lender liability (National Environmental Management Act 107
of 1998; National Water Act 36 of 1998 and the National Environmental Management:
Waste Act 59 of 2008) be revised to specifically accommodate and protect lenders
(lending banks) in certain distinct circumstances.
The role of banks is that of an intermediary between borrowers and lenders of money.
Therefore, it influences the direction and pace of economic development and by default
steers and promotes either sustainable or non-sustainable development. Currently,
mainstream banks are in effect financing a brown economy and hence subscribe to a
weak form of sustainability. It would seem that mainstream banks are more concerned
with managing the impact that environmental risk may have on bank lending than the
impact of bank lending on the environment. The evolving nature of sustainability (from
weak to strong and from a brown to green economy) demands a fundamental policy
change for banks. It is expected that mainstream banks will be put under even greater
pressure than before to make the transition from weak to strong sustainability. Hence,
banks’ current environmental risk management systems will not be sufficient to cater for
new environmental risks and liabilities that the move to stronger sustainability (in the
form of the green economy) will present. Banks should adopt the stronger version of sustainability; formulate environmental
principles that the bank will adhere to; incorporate these environmental principles into all
aspects of its lending cycle, develop an environmental risk management system that
should include as a minimum the identification of all the applicable legislation pertaining
to the specific financing or lending of capital, risk identification, assessment of the
specific risk, implementation of risk control measures, mitigation of the risk, risk
monitoring and auditing. / LLM (Environmental Law and Governance), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014
|
5 |
Sustainability-environmental risks and legal liabilities of South African banks / Johannes Hendrik CoetzeeCoetzee, Johannes Hendrik January 2013 (has links)
In the environmental context banks face direct, indirect and reputational risks from their
internal operations and their external business activities. The current specific focus on
the protection of the environment makes it essential for banks and their directors to be
aware and stay on top of potential risks and liabilities. This is especially so because
banks’ directors can be criminally prosecuted for environmental crimes. The application
and effect of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) on persons
convicted of an environmental crime or crimes has been identified as a possible new or
added risk for banks and their directors. Banks in addition to their normal environmental
risk and liabilities also need to contend with the possibility of lender liability. Existing
legislation pertinent to lender liability does not expressly or specifically deal with lender
liability. Absence of judgements on lender liability further exacerbates the risks and the
uncertainty for banks in South Africa. Therefore, banks remain subject to legal
uncertainty and associated risks. The issue of lender liability specifically with regard to
the implication of “the person in control” requires clarification. Hence, it is recommended
that legislation relevant to lender liability (National Environmental Management Act 107
of 1998; National Water Act 36 of 1998 and the National Environmental Management:
Waste Act 59 of 2008) be revised to specifically accommodate and protect lenders
(lending banks) in certain distinct circumstances.
The role of banks is that of an intermediary between borrowers and lenders of money.
Therefore, it influences the direction and pace of economic development and by default
steers and promotes either sustainable or non-sustainable development. Currently,
mainstream banks are in effect financing a brown economy and hence subscribe to a
weak form of sustainability. It would seem that mainstream banks are more concerned
with managing the impact that environmental risk may have on bank lending than the
impact of bank lending on the environment. The evolving nature of sustainability (from
weak to strong and from a brown to green economy) demands a fundamental policy
change for banks. It is expected that mainstream banks will be put under even greater
pressure than before to make the transition from weak to strong sustainability. Hence,
banks’ current environmental risk management systems will not be sufficient to cater for
new environmental risks and liabilities that the move to stronger sustainability (in the
form of the green economy) will present. Banks should adopt the stronger version of sustainability; formulate environmental
principles that the bank will adhere to; incorporate these environmental principles into all
aspects of its lending cycle, develop an environmental risk management system that
should include as a minimum the identification of all the applicable legislation pertaining
to the specific financing or lending of capital, risk identification, assessment of the
specific risk, implementation of risk control measures, mitigation of the risk, risk
monitoring and auditing. / LLM (Environmental Law and Governance), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014
|
Page generated in 0.0685 seconds