Citi Bank is a bank in the US. The bank has its securities listed on the US stock exchange markets. Securities trade is an economic foundation in any country, thus the relevant authorities have to prevent risky gambles in securities (Bagley and Diane 887). The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is involved in this prevention in the US. The (SEC) enforces a number of Acts that include the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 in preventing the securities from risky ventures. In addition to these enforcements, the SEC passes and implements any laws that are meant to prohibit any form of risky gambling in the security markets. It also ensures that any act that is meant to harm the market does not occur. The SEC also carries out investigations on cases where any misconduct in the security markets arises. Legal action is taken against those found guilty.
Elements of a valid contract
While a contract is an agreement, not all agreements are contracts. An agreement is only deemed to be a contract only if it is enforceable in the law. The parties involved in a contract are expected to act in good faith and deal with one another fairly. This means that the parties should be honest with one another. However, it is important to note that good faith and fair dealings should not overshadow the contract’s express terms. In a banking institution, the customers make contractual agreements with the bank. Normally the contractual relationship between a customer and a banking institution will arise when the customer borrows money and the bank lends the money to the customer. It is usually a debtor–creditor contractual relationship whereby the bank is the creditor and the customer is the debtor (Bagley and Diane 935). The debtor could be an individual, a company, a business organization, or an institution. The agreement or the contract that they make should contain the elements of a valid contract that are explained in the following section.
To begin with, there should be a clear and definite offer before making a contract. The offer in this case would be the customer’s request to borrow money. On the other hand, the customer is expected to repay the bank as per the conditions set by the bank. The second element in a valid contract is the aspect of acceptance. A contract is only considered to be valid when there is acceptance of the offer (Helewitz 19). The bank has to accept the request from the customer. The customer should not have any bad intentions when borrowing the money. In other words, the act of borrowing should be done in good faith. For instance, the borrower should not have the intentions of getting away with the money. Similarly, the bank should accept the offer in good faith.
The third element that makes a contract to be valid is the intention of legal consequences. Both the customer and the bank should have the intention to enter into a contract that is legally binding. In other words, both parties should be aware of the fact that the contract can be lawfully enforced (Helewitz 19). The parties should create or have intentions to create legal relations. In the event that the parties do not want to be legally bound, this has to be included through writing in the contract. Failure to include this in writing makes the agreement to be legally enforceable. It should be noted that the legal intentions must be in good faith.
The fourth element that makes a contract to be valid is the aspect of consideration. In other words, the contract has to be supported by significant consideration for it to be deemed binding. This means that one party promises something or to do something with the aim of getting a return that is promised by the other party. Consideration gives the benefit of value (Helewitz 20). In the case of the bank, the bank will promise to lend money to the customer on the promise that the customer will pay back the money with interest. The customer will also promise to offer collateral as requested by the bank. These are the four major elements of a contract.
Differences between intentional and negligent tort actions
There is usually a common confusion between an intentional tort and a negligent tort. Although both of them are torts and they cause harm, there is a very distinct difference between them. An intentional tort is one where the defendant had intentions and meant to cause harm to the plaintiff. In other words, the defendant performs the act that causes harm knowingly and with purpose (Okrent 3). One good example that can be used to explain an intentional tort is the case of an assault, which is confused for battery. An assault is where someone knowingly causes fear on another individual through issuing threats. However, one does not actually come into contact with the victim, thus no physical harm or damage is caused. On the other hand, battery is where one comes into actual contact with another person and causes physical damage or harm. It is possible to have both assault and battery at the same time. However, there are cases where battery occurs without assault. At the same time, there are cases where assault occurs without battery. These two scenarios notwithstanding, both battery and assault are intentional torts.
Damages that are considered in an intentional tort are usually broader. They are also said to be relatively general. For instance, one can get a punitive damage if it is proved that they committed an intentional tort. However, it is not easy to prove that the tort was intentional because the plaintiff is expected to provide subjective elements such as what was in the defendant’s mind when they committed the act. The intention of the defendant is not always expressed loudly, making it difficult to prove.
On the other hand, a negligent tort occurs when one causes harm to another person out of acting with little or no care. Such a tort is not committed knowingly or with a purpose, but the bottom line is that it causes harm to the victim the same way an intentional tort would (Okrent 4). An example of a negligent tort is the case of a car accident where the driver is not careful and the car gets an accident and people get injured. The driver may not be having the intention to cause the accident, but the accident occurred due to careless driving.
It is easier to prove a negligent tort than it is to prove the case of an intentional tort. The elements that are needed to prove the act of negligence are: harm, proximate cause, duty, and breach of duty (Okrent 3). One must have caused harm in the first place. They also must have had a duty to perform and then breached that duty. This act leads to harm. The event that led to the harm must be closely related to the harm. This constitutes proximate cause.
Breach of Fiduciary duty
When two or more parties have a trust relationship between each other, such a relationship can be referred to as a fiduciary. At times, one party might decide to break the relationship by acting in an untrustworthy manner. When a customer keeps money in the bank, they trust that the bank will safeguard that money. This is a fiduciary relationship (Bagley and Diane 938). The bank may, however, decide to misuse the money entrusted to it by its customers. This would constitute a tort that can be classified as intentional if the bank did the act knowingly. It would be a negligent tort if the bank misused the money out of carelessness. If Citi Bank behaved in the same manner as JP Morgan, then it would be possible to preside over the tort because it was a negligent act because the investment decisions were not meant to cause losses. I would prevail over the tort by providing proof using the relevant elements required to prove a negligent tort.
Mobile banking software protection
Any software is prone to hacking or other forms of distortion. This exposes bankers to the risk of losing their money. Banks have come up with ways of developing software with the product key to protect the software. One is required to enter the key to access the software. In addition, there is a protection mechanism referred to as cryptography (Wu 131). Cryptography is more applicable in ATM cards. The banks provide secret codes and only the owner of the account is given the codes.
Works Cited
Bagley, Constance E, and Diane W. Savage. Managers and the Legal Environment: Strategies for the 21st Century. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.
Helewitz, Jeffrey A. Basic Contract Law for Paralegals. Austin, TX: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2010. Print.
Okrent, Cathy J. Torts, and Personal Injury Law. Australia: Delmar Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.
Wu, Yanwen. Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering: Theory and Practice. Berlin: Springer, 2012. Print.