In a case where the client of a bank considered selling his put-options, the bank warned him on the financial consquences he would take. Selling his put-options would involve risking his entire assets.

The client persisted in writing put options. As in a bad dream, the stock-market went down and the client lost more he could afford.

The client dealt with stocks since 1987, so he could merely be called a newcomer in this game. He knew the risks involving dealing with the stockmarket and was certainly no 'ignorant private person'.

Client sued the bank for not warning him for the consequences of his actions. Of course the bank replied before the court that it warned its client several times and client himself had enough experience and knowledge with the risks of his action.

The court in first instance accepted the arguments of the bank. The client went to appeal this decision finally at the highest court of The Netherlands the "Hoge Raad".

Banks have in their professional relation to their clients a special obligation to inform their clients on risks they might take. This care extends even so far that the bank should refuse the assignment of their clients if they evolve a too high risk.

Banks are professional and have the expertise to judge objectively wether the transaction is worth the risk.

Not only banks have this kind of obligation: also insurance companies are liable for not informing their clients enough!