Samuel Rappaport Family Partnership v. Meridian Bank
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
657 A.2d 17 (1995)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
In May 1985, McKlan, Inc. (McKlan) entered into a lease for property that required McKlan to sign a $100,000 letter of credit. Three months later, Marvin Orleans purchased the property and was assigned the former landlords’ interest in the lease. Meridian Bank (Meridian) (defendant) issued the required letter of credit upon McKlan’s instruction. The letter of credit conditioned payment upon Meridian’s receipt of (1) a draft from escrow agent David Pincus, (2) certification that McKlan had received notice of the draft presentment, and (3) a certificate signed by Orleans. Shortly thereafter, Orleans died. Pincus subsequently presented a draft to Meridian, including the required documents. However, because Orleans had died, the required certificate was instead signed by Samuel Rappaport (plaintiff), who had bought the property from Orleans’s estate. Meridian refused to issue payment on the letter of credit, because the draft was not presented with a certificate signed by Orleans as required. Rappaport brought suit against Meridian, arguing that Orleans’s death called into question the continued validity of the letter-of-credit provision requiring a certificate bearing Orleans’s signature. The trial court found in Meridian’s favor, concluding that dishonor of the draft was proper based on insufficient compliance with the conditions for the letter of credit. Rappaport appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hester, J.)
Concurrence (Olszewski, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.