What was the main legal argument used by Akhil against Banque Commerciale SA?

The primary legal argument advanced by Akhil against Banque Commerciale SA was based on breach of trust. In cases involving breach of trust, one party (the trustee) is alleged to have failed in a fiduciary duty toward another party (the beneficiary). This form of argument typically centers around the notion that the trustee has mismanaged or misappropriated assets or failed to act in the best interests of the trust.

In this scenario, Akhil would have established that the Banque Commerciale SA had a position of trust concerning his assets or interests, and that the bank’s actions (or inactions) directly violated that trust. This argument would necessitate demonstrating the existence of a fiduciary relationship along with evidence of a breach of the duties that arise from such a relationship.

Breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligence are all distinct legal claims that involve different elements and requirements for proof. Breach of contract would involve the failure of the bank to uphold the terms of a contract explicitly agreed upon, while fraudulent misrepresentation would relate to a false statement made knowingly to induce reliance. Negligence would require showing that the bank owed a duty of care to Akhil and failed to meet that standard. In contrast, breach of trust directly addresses