Article

InLaurant Beverly Hills,the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a memorandum opinion, affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Central District of California, Rea, J., which granted the supplier's motion for summary judgment.

An agent of a broker authorized to purchase vehicles for the Chinese Military requested and received a price quotation from the supplier. The quotation explained that a L/C, approved by it, was necessary to consummate the sale. No L/C was ever tendered. Approximately one week later, the supplier received another request for a quotation with the same specifications. The party receiving that quotation tendered a letter of credit and purchased the vehicles for the ultimate buyer, the Chinese Military.

The original broker sued the supplier for breach of contract. The supplier moved for summary judgment on the ground that no written contract existed.

According to the plaintiff, the L/C contained all of the same terms and was for the same ultimate buyer. In affirming, the appellate court rejected the broker's claim that the letter of credit tendered by the other purchaser could be used to prove the existence of the contract between it and the supplier. The court noted that the L/C did not mention the broker or any commissions due the broker even though it contained the material terms of the agreement. The court distinguishedProcyon Corp. v. Components Direct, Inc.,249 Cal. Rptr. 813 (Ct. App. 1988) (letter of credit that contained all of the material terms and the identity of the parties was used to prove the existence of the contract).

©1997 INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of ICC or the other partners in DC-PRO.