Negotiable Instruments in UK Law

It is well established that the normal relation between a banker and his customer is that of debtor and creditor, but it is equally well established that quoad the drawing and payment of the customer's cheques as against money of the customer's in the banker's hands the relation is that of principal and agent. The cheque is an order of the principal addressed to the agent to pay out of the principal's money in the agent's hands the amount of the cheque to the payee thereof.

But such is the common law of England, and one of the consequences of the historic origin of the tort of conversion and its application to negotiable instruments as "goods" is that the tort at common law is one of strict liability in which the moral concept of fault in the sense of either knowledge by the doer of an act that it is likely to cause injury, loss ordamage to another, or lack of reasonable care to avoid causing injury, loss or damage to another, plays no part.

At common law one's duty to one's neighbour who is the owner, or entitled to possession, of any goods is to refrain from doing any voluntary act in relation to his goods which is a usurpation of his proprietary or possessory rights in them.

On the back is written the following: "The issuing Banks undertake that any cheque not exceeding £30 will be honoured subject to the following conditions: a. The signature on the cheque must correspond with the specimen signature on this card. The cheque must be drawn on a bank cheque form bearing the code number shown on this card." The cheque must be drawn before the expiry date of this card. The card number must be written on the reverse of the cheque by the payee."

If the account is in credit, as we have seen, there is an obligation to honour the cheque. It is a right of property which can properly be described as a thing in action and therefore potentially a subject of theft under the provisions of the 1968 Act. The cheque is the means by which the theft of this property is achieved. The completion of the theft does not take place until the transaction has gone through to completion.

Section 16(1) does not provide either expressly or by implication that the person deceived must suffer any loss arising from the deception. What does have to be proved is that the accused by deception obtained for himself or another a pecuniary advantage. What there must be is a causal connection between the deception used and the pecuniary advantage obtained.