header-logo header-logo

Chip & pin fallacies

16 October 2009 / Roger Porkess , Stephen Mason
Issue: 7389 / Categories: Opinion , Banking
printer mail-detail

Recent cases have raised questions about the safety of chip and pin cards from fraudulent attack, for example by cloning. Typically, in such cases, the claimant is an individual whose account has been debited as a result of one or more allegedly unauthorised card transactions; the defendant is a bank or building society.

Recent cases have raised questions about the safety of chip and pin cards from fraudulent attack, for example by cloning.

Typically, in such cases, the claimant is an individual whose account has been debited as a result of one or more allegedly unauthorised card transactions; the defendant is a bank or building society.

A common counterclaim for damages for breach of contract is that the claimant did not observe the security conditions attached to the card and so made it possible for it to be used fraudulently.

In such cases, at least one disputed transaction has taken place. The question before a court is which of four possible explanations is the most likely, although they may not all

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll