     Christine Baker (Admin) | Monday, February 19, 2001 - 02:52 pm 
Since you can't prove that you DIDN'T disclose your password to someone you're apparently 100% liable for all losses.
From https://www.pcbanking.cibc.com/english/servlet/Legal :
"If my Bank Card is lost or stolen or if I know or suspect that someone else may know any of my Passwords or may be using my Bank Card or my Bank Card Number, as soon as reasonably possible I must notify by phone or in person: (a) my CIBC branch; (b) CIBC Telephone Banking; or (c) the contact specified in my customer agreement governing my Account. I will not be liable for losses that occur after I give notice. If I know or suspect that someone else knows any of my Passwords, I must change all of my Passwords immediately.
I will be liable for all losses that occur if my Bank Card Number and Passwords are used to access my Account or any Service whether I authorize that use or not unless I prove to CIBC's satisfaction that I did not disclose my Passwords to anyone else or in any way enable someone else to find out my Passwords. My liability will not be limited by my Account balance or credit limit or any daily transaction limits." |
| Zachary1 (Drcredit) | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 02:26 pm
In practice, a legal challenge to CIBC will produce an onus on THEM to prove that the customer wilfully attempted to defraud the bank. The bank, in circumstances where there is doubt, will cough up the dough plus legal costs, and if you have a sympathetic judge, YOUR time and legal costs, too. The wording here is used to discourage the pranksters, and courts have recognized this in Canadian case law. |
| Christine Baker (Admin) | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 05:16 pm
Interesting. Knowing nothing about Canadian law or practice I'll take your word for it.
I don't think it's a good idea to allow companies to use those "unenforcable" clauses. Next time I read Canadian terms, how would I know whether they are enforcable? |
| Christine Baker (Admin) | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 05:18 pm
And that's certainly not only a Canadian problem. I've seen my share of illegal terms, especially for mortgage prepayment penalties. |
| Zachary1 (Drcredit) | Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 01:13 pm
That being said, the bank rarely goes after proving these cases unless their ego is at stake or the dollar value is sufficient (which is rare). In CIBC's specific policy, I do know this for certain. |
