Abstract
Banking Business is subject to specific risks. Against these risks, the banker’s refusal seems to be an adequate means of protection and security.Since the banker is the first to expose himself to those risks, it seems natural that banking law is governed by a principle of freedom: freedom of contract, entrepreneurial freedom, freedom to take risks and consequently freedom to refuse. However, a banker’s tendency to overprotect himself would turn out to be detrimental to the public as such refusal can be a source of social and economic exclusion. Indeed, it is absolutely impossible to deny how vital the banking services are for all society actors. The banker’s freedom of refusal shall therefore be tempered by the search for an appropriate balance between his own protection and his existing or potential customers’ protection. Thus, certain and defined limitations to the banker’s freedom of refusal should result from this search for balance so that, under certain circumstances, a duty not to refuse could be imposed on the banker. In any event, freedom remains the principle while exceptions may be justified.Furthermore, the banker is not the only one to take risks. Indeed, banking contracts involve risks borne by his co-contractors and by their creditors, even though they are third parties to the agreement. That is why the co-contractors, often less experienced than the banker regarding the risks attached to bank operations, as well as the third parties to the agreement who are unaware of the existence of such risks deserve in this respect to be protected. The search for security could take the form of a refusal obligation imposed on the banker. However, as any obligation of refusal infringes on the banker’s and his co-contractors’ freedom, only the protection of the general interest would actually be able to justify such infringement. Though, even if there are indisputable assumptions where such an obligation of refusal exist under positive law, it appears that a general obligation of refusal shall be difficult, if not impossible, to identify. Such an obligation, although deemed moral, is undesirable as it could result in affecting the interests it sought to protect.