Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

First State Bank v. Diamond Plastics Corp.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided March 14, 1995No. 76571Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSummers, Justice

I agree that strict compliance is a proper standard for measuring a demand .for payment pursuant to a letter of credit. I further agree that a nonnegotiable bill of lading cannot be unilaterally presented by a beneficiary to demand payment on a letter of credit requiring a negotiable bill of lading. But this letter of credit does not require Diamond Plastics to present a negotiable bill of lading. In my view, its presentment strictly complied with the terms of the letter of credit. I would not remand this case on an estoppel theory as does the Court, but rather would remand with instructions…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Westwind Exploration, Inc. v. Homestate Savings Ass'nTexas Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Allied Chemical International Corp. v. Companhia De Navegacao Lloyd BrasileiroCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
  3. Marino Industries Corp., Cross-Appellee v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
  4. Pringle-Associated Mortgage Corporation, a Louisiana Corporation v. Southern National Bank of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, a National Banking CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
  5. Bank of China v. David C.W. ChanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API