Banks are well known to protect themselves with an impregnable wall of protective clauses. However, the trend of late in the UK and Singapore, is for Courts to be reticent to give full weight to a bank’s defensive clauses if the counterparty to a transaction is vulnerable, such as elders, illiterate persons, etc. This is especially so in transactions involving financial products where the intricacies of the product are difficult for the consumer to comprehend. This paper sought to trace the history of bank’s defensive clauses and the gradual marked departure by the English and Singapore Courts from a rigid adherence to enforcing the parties’ bargain. It also sought to suggest the implications for banking practice in relation to financial products for retail consumers.