TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bounty Trading Corp. v. S.E.K. Sportswear, Ltd.

Bounty Trading Corporation v. S.E.K. Sportswear, Ltd., and Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York

Bounty Trading Corp. v. S.E.K. Sportswear, Ltd., 48 A.D.2d 811 (1975)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 24, 1975
Citations
48 A.D.2d 811370 N.Y.S.2d 41975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1001117 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 797

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 3, 1974, in favor of plaintiff-respondent in this declaratory judgment action, after a nonjury trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and vacated, and judgment granted to the defendant-appellant, declaring that plaintiff is not entitled to any funds under the letter of credit. Appellant shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The single issue presented is whether plaintiff complied with an irrevocable letter of credit obtained from defendant-appellant Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York (Bank) by the latter’s now defunct customer S.E.K. Sportswear, Ltd. (S.E.K.) and issued in plaintiff’s favor. Under the terms of the letter of credit payment of $11,000 was to be made upon presentment of plaintiff’s sight draft and a written statement that S.E.K. had not paid a promissory note it had given to plaintiff. At the same time that defendant-appellant was advised the note had not been paid, it received from plaintiff’s bank, Century National Bank and Trust Company (Century), a document entitled "collection letter” containing the following instructions: "We enclose for collection item listed below, deliver documents only on payment unless otherwise instructed, documentary drafts are not to be returned unless so ordered, wire non-payment on all items $1000 or over unless otherwise instructed. Do not hold for convenience of parties.” Despite allusion to an accompanying draft, none was enclosed and the collection letter should not have been considered its equivalent. The collection letter could not qualify as plaintiff’s sight draft for it was not an unconditional order to pay money and it was burdened with additional instructions (Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-104). Moreover, Century’s typed name was the only "signature” thereon. Since the terms and conditions of a letter of credit must be strictly adhered to, plaintiff is not entitled to the funds secured thereby. (Anglo-South Amer. Trust Co. v Uhe, 261 NY 150, 156-157 .) Settle order on notice. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Lupiano, Capozzoli, Nunez, and Yesawich, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1978: 21979: 11980: 11981: 11984: 11988: 12004: 119782026peak 1978 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Anglo-South Am. Trust Co. v. Uhe, 184 N.E. 741 (N.Y. 1933) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list