Synthetic Materials Corp. v. Maciel
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
1. It is clear from the unmodified language (particularly the opening clause of the second paragraph) of the writing admittedly executed by the defendants on July 21, 1977, that that writing constituted an absolute guaranty of specifically described obligations of Thames, Ltd. (Thames), as opposed to an offer to guarantee those obligations. It follows that the plaintiff was not required to notify the defendants of its acceptance of the guaranty or to demonstrate that it relied thereon in subsequently extending credit to Thames. Paige v. Parker, 8 Gray 211, 214 (1857). Lennox v. Murphy, 171…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Merrimack Valley National Bank v. BairdMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Yorke v. TaylorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1955
- Levy v. BendetsonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1978
- Bishop v. EatonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Crompton v. PrattMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Canty v. Arbella Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1998
- Commonwealth v. HannafordMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
- Zeller v. American Safety Razor Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1983
- Tiernan v. TiernanMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1980