Background: Li Zheng transferred $69,000 from her account at the Bank of China (Canada) Vancouver Richmond Branch to a Hong Kong account after being deceived by a fraudulent caller claiming to be from the Chinese consulate. Zheng alleged the bank failed to warn her of a known fraud scheme.

Legal Arguments/Issues:

1. Duty to Warn: Zheng argued the bank had a duty to warn her about the prevalent fraud when she appeared stressed and intended to transfer a large sum.
2. Exclusion Clause: The bank cited an exclusion-of-liability clause in the remittance application, which protected it from liability except in cases of negligence or willful misconduct.
3. Unconscionability: Zheng contended the exclusion clause was unconscionable given her vulnerability and the bank's knowledge of the fraud.

Held: The Court of Appeal found there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the bank's duty to warn Zheng about the fraud. The court also found that the applicability and enforceability of the exclusion clause, as well as its potential unconscionability, were genuine issues for trial. The summary dismissal was set aside, and the bank's application for summary judgment was dismissed.

Costs/Damages Awarded: The court revived the claim based on the bank's duty to warn but not the other abandoned claims. Each party bore their own costs for the appeal. No specific damages were awarded at this stage as the case was sent back for trial.