Facts
The Federal Court had to rule on an appeal by [X. AG] (defendant) against a judgment of the FJA of the canton of Basel-Landschaft of November 27, 2001. The plaintiff, R. [H.] , and his then wife had a bank account with the defendant. After the separation of the spouses, DM 450,000.-- was transferred from the wife's account to the plaintiff's account. In May 1997, the defendant received a letter allegedly sent by the plaintiff, instructing the transfer of the remaining balance to the wife's account. However, the signature on the letter was forged. The defendant transferred the amount and later also dissolved a tied trust investment to credit the amount to the wife's account.
The plaintiff sued the defendant and demanded reimbursement of the amount. The District Court of Arlesheim and the FJA of the canton of Basel-Landschaft ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, arguing that it had not breached its duty of care and that the plaintiff should have recognized the forgery of the signature on the letter.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the appeal and concluded that the defendant had breached its duty of care by executing the transfers without prior verification of the identity of the client and without considering the suspicious circumstances of the payment order. The defendant had shifted its risks to the customer without justification.
The Federal Court found that the lower court had not exceeded its discretion in assessing the defendant's fault and that the defendant had acted with gross negligence. The defendant had not recognized the forgery of the signature on the…