Marzetti v. Williams
Rule established
Wrongful dishonour of a trader's cheque carries presumption of substantial damages without proof of actual loss
Facts
- Marzetti, a trader, drew a cheque on his bankers (Williams and others)
- The bank had sufficient funds to honour the cheque
- The bank wrongfully dishonoured the cheque
- Marzetti sued for damages without proving specific financial loss
Issue
- Whether a banker is liable for substantial damages for wrongfully dishonouring a trader's cheque even without proof of actual pecuniary loss.
Held
- Lord Tenterden CJ held that where a banker wrongfully dishonours a trader's cheque when funds are sufficient, the trader is entitled to recover substantial damages without proving specific loss. The wrongful dishonour itself is evidence of damage because it impugns the trader's creditworthiness in the commercial community.
Ratio Decidendi
A trader whose cheque is wrongfully dishonoured is presumed to have suffered substantial damage to credit and reputation. Actual pecuniary loss need not be proved. The dishonour itself suffices as evidence of damage.
How to use it in an exam
Foundational authority for wrongful dishonour questions. Key line: "For a trader, wrongful dishonour carries a presumption of substantial damage; actual loss need not be proved." Distinguish from non-traders who must prove actual loss.
Source
Source: English Reports
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.
Cited in study notes
Paying Banker Duties and ObligationsLiability for wrongful dishonour