Newsletters Archives | Nevile & Co. Lawyers

As digital transactions become the majority of all transactions, from Paypal to Venmo to tap-and-go, so too does the potential for ‘fat fingering’. Maybe the man at the café charged you 45c instead of $4.50 for that coffee, or maybe a friend sent you $100 for dinner instead of $10. What does the law say in regard to this sort of mistake, and do you have to give the money back?

The Honourable Justice Elliot is considering these issues in the case of Foris GFS Australia Pty Ltd v Manivel. An employee of Crypto.com, a cryptocurrency exchange, went to transfer a $100 refund to a customer. Instead of typing in $100 into the “Amount” field, the employee typed in Manivel’s account number 10474143, resulting in an 8-digit windfall for the lucky Manivel. “Extraordinarily”, in the words of Elliot J, this mistake was not realised until 7 months later.

Unfortunately for Crypto.com, Manivel decided to share the money among 6 other people, and generously bought a $1.35m house in Craigieburn for her sister in Malaysia.

Unsurprisingly, the sister became very hard to contact when Crypto.com came asking for its money back.

Crypto.com then went off to court to try get its money back. Although Manivel used the money to buy a house and transferred it to her sister, the money is traceable. The money would not have been in her sister’s hands if it had not been accidently made by Crypto.com. In this sense, her sister was “unjustly enriched”. Crypto.com therefore is able to get the $1.35m purchase price back from Manivel’s sister, plus penalty interest. The ‘tactic’ of simply not answering the door or picking up the phone when people come asking for their money back doesn’t work.

There are two key takeaways we can glean from this.

The first is that despite all the anti-state, anti-bank marketing, even crypto companies drop the “immutable ledger no takebacks” sales pitch, and run off to court to have a bank help them out.

The second and more important lesson is that just because you handed a small pile of coins to the barista, and they handed you a $10 note back, it doesn’t mean that money is yours. If you get given too much money by mistake, you should give it back. Penalty interest hurts!

DISCLAIMER The contents of this newsletter are of a general nature and cannot be relied upon as legal advice. However, if you need legal advice please do not hesitate to contact any one of our lawyers.

Whether E-scooters are a miracle solution or simply another roadside nuisance depends on how many times you refresh your newsfeed. Regardless of the conflicting opinions, their rise in popularity is increasing pressure and demand for clearly defined laws surrounding their use.

Previously, the guidance provided by RACV and VicRoads stated that only electronic scooters which:

Have a motor operating under 200 watts; and
Have a maximum speed of 10 km/hr on level ground

are permissible on public roads.

To put this into perspective, mobility scooters have a 250 watt capacity with a maximum speed range of 25-35 km/hr, which the average wattage across the e-scooter board is 1145 watts.

Those who did not meet the criteria, but still insisted upon challenging their grandma’s mobility scooter to a street race, could expect to receive a $909.00 fine.

Currently however, the restrictions have been tightened. According to the Road Safety Rules 2017 (Vis), riding a privately owned scooter on public roads is prohibited. The only exception is if the rider is using an e-scooter that is part of a commercial share scheme. Although this may seem disheartening for e-scooter enthusiasts, there is a silver lining.

VicRoads is currently undertaking trials within restricted regions to determine whether e-scooters can harmoniously co-exist with other vehicles and pedestrians.

These trials are ongoing and expected to produce a clearer idea for the future of privately owned e-scooters and finally set the headlines straight.

Expertise