Legal Opinion

Thermo Contracting Corp. v. Bank of New Jersey

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided March 12, 1976Published

1DissentSchreiber, J.

I must respectfully dissent from the proposition that a bank which wrongfully converts cheeks must be freed as a matter of law from its responsibility to the payee where the payee has not unequivocally agreed to that relinquishment.

Thermo Contracting Corp. (Thermo), • a general contractor, engaged in business primarily with the federal government. Erequently it would subcontract the entire project, *366limiting its participation to purchases of some of the materials and insurance, and handling administrative details. The subcontractor would supervise the project, furnish all the labor, and…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Rakestraw v. RodriguesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Independent Oil Men's Ass'n v. Fort Dearborn National BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
  4. Lindenthal v. Northwest State BankAppellate Court of Illinois · 1921

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

Powered by the Exa API