Bank Link Use Agreement No: Fill & Download for Free

By now, at least in the US, most courts have held "browse-wrap" agreements to be enforceable. That said, the answer you'll get from most lawyers is that things vary by jurisdiction, and there are no guarantees, but the greatest likelihood of the terms being upheld in court, in descending order, is as follows:Electronic signature (meaning user must type his or her name or initials into a signature box)"Click-wrap" with a scroll box showing the entire language of the TOU (bonus points for making the user scroll all the way to the bottom before enabling the "I Agree" button, or for including a printable version)"Click-wrap" with a box that must be checked by the user, above the Submit button, stating "I have read and agree to the Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy" (links)No box to check, just language stating that "By using the site, you agree to the Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy" (links), preferably appearing above the "Continue" or "Submit" buttonNone of the above, only links at the bottom of the page to the TOU and Privacy Policy.Of course it should be immediately apparent that in terms of user experience and conversion rate, the order of these is inverted. The more barriers you put in front of new users, the lower your V-to-R (visitor to registration) percentage is likely to be. So it's a classic example of lawyers vs. marketers, and you can guess which is more important to most sites. In practice, they usually settle on #3 or #4 as a good-enough compromise. Here's an example of #4 from Match.com:The approach really should be tailored to the nature of the site. For consumer-facing sites with a lot of legal exposure or in heavily regulated industries (PayPal (product), online banking and brokerage sites, SharesPost, etc.), they often have no choice but to go with #1 or #2. At the other extreme, news and information sites that don't even require registration, are free, mostly unregulated, etc., are likely to gravitate to #5. The more onerous and one-sided the terms are, the more likely a judge is to declare them unenforceable, but you stand a better chance by requiring a higher level of disclosure and consent.

They use it to look at your credit record and ensure that when they ask the credit reference agency for your details they get the right “John Smith” (or whoever it is).Here is a sample credit report:https://www.experian.co.uk/downloads/consumer/mock-report.pdfBut the bank may not get all that information, what they really want and what they get is your history of credit (good and bad). The loans you have taken, any arrangements you have with banks, credit cards, any legal judgements against you, any issues you’ve had paying, etc. Past and present addresses and anyone you have linked credit agreements with (e.g. domestic partner with a shared mortgage, or shared rental agreement).No one knows your salary, unless you tell them, other than HMRC. The report also shows previous credit checks, this is useful to a financial institution because they can see if you are searching around for lots of credit (some people aren’t pleased at this though).Interestingly having no credit history can also be prejudice to your applications for credit. If someone has never had a credit agreement for anything, and never been in debt, this means that the financial institutions don’t know how they will perform when they do need debt. Ironically you sometimes need to build a credit history before you can get a financial product, even if you don’t have any issues paying for it.

Salary accounts are allowed as ZERO BALANCE accounts. Why? Because the banks know very well that your monthly salary will be deposited every month. It is extremely unlikely that account balance will reach zero because almost all, that is 99.9999% salary account holders, will always have some balance. There is also a reciprocal arrangement and agreement with employers — banks will grant extra facilities to salary saving account holders. Minimum balance condition being waved off is one such condition in the agreement. HDFC or ICICI — it doesn't make a difference specific to this condition. What makes the difference is what bank gives you greater benefit and facilities.My suggestion is that unless you have linked your ICICI Bank account to a demat account or used it as the bank for Mutual Funds, and you don't wish to go into the trouble of changing mandate everywhere, it is better to close the account. Or else negotiate with the bank to show zero balance. When it comes to closing, the bank will take notice and will give the option; not normally otherwise. It is better to get rid of dormant accounts. Less headache.