Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chuidian v. Philippine National Bank

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 1, 1992No. 90-56031Published

1DissentFernandez, Circuit Judge

We must decide whether a bank’s obligation under a letter of credit will be enforced when the performance is legal at the place designated for payment but illegal at the place where the credit was issued. Here, the letter of credit explicitly stated that Chuidian was to present his sight drafts “for payment at the counters of the Philippine National Bank, Los Angeles, 700 South Flower Street Suite 2516 Los Ange-les, CA 90017.” No other place of payment was designated. Moreover, Los Angeles is the place where prior payments had been made.

The majority presents one possible solution. The two…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. J. Zeevi & Sons, Ltd. v. Grindlays BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  3. Bank of Cochin Ltd. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1985
  4. Bank of Cochin, Ltd. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company and St. Lucia Enterprises, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
  5. Neuchatel Swiss General Insurance Company, and Express Transports S.A. v. Lufthansa Airlines Deutsche Lufthansa A.G.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991

3 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