Maurice O'Meara Co. v. National Park Bank
39 A.L.R. 747, 146 N.E. 636, 239 N.Y. 386 (1925)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An issuing bank's obligation to pay under an irrevocable letter of credit is independent of the underlying contract for the sale of goods. The bank must honor a draft accompanied by documents that conform on their face to the letter of credit's requirements, regardless of disputes concerning the quality of the goods.
Facts:
- The National Park Bank issued a confirmed, irrevocable letter of credit in favor of Ronconi & Millar on behalf of its customer, the Sun-Herald Corporation.
- The letter of credit was for approximately $224,853 to cover a shipment of newsprint paper with specified size, weight, and tensile strength characteristics.
- Payment was conditioned on the presentation of sight drafts accompanied by three documents: a commercial invoice, weight returns, and a negotiable dock delivery order.
- Ronconi & Millar presented two drafts for payment, along with the required documents, which described the paper as meeting the letter of credit's specifications.
- The National Park Bank refused to pay the drafts, stating it had a "reasonable doubt regarding the quality of the newsprint paper" and needed to conduct its own test before paying.
- After the contract was formed, the market price for newsprint paper declined significantly.
- Ronconi & Millar assigned their claim against the bank to the plaintiff, Maurice O'Meara Co.
Procedural Posture:
- Maurice O'Meara Co. sued The National Park Bank in a New York court of first instance (Special Term) to recover damages.
- The plaintiff moved for summary judgment.
- The Special Term denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
- The plaintiff appealed to the intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Special Term's order denying summary judgment.
- The Appellate Division granted the plaintiff leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court, and certified a question for its review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a bank that issues an irrevocable letter of credit have the right to refuse payment on drafts, which are accompanied by conforming documents, because of a dispute over the quality or condition of the goods in the underlying sales transaction?
Opinions:
Majority - McLaughlin, J.
No. A bank's obligation under an irrevocable letter of credit is independent of the underlying sales contract and is defined exclusively by the terms of the letter itself. The bank was concerned only with the drafts and the accompanying documents, not the quality of the paper. If the documents presented were genuine and conformed on their face to the requirements of the letter of credit, the bank was absolutely bound to make payment, irrespective of any knowledge or belief that the goods did not conform to the sales contract. To allow the bank to inspect the goods would be to read a new condition into the letter of credit, which would defeat the primary purpose of such instruments: to provide sellers with an assurance of prompt payment against documents.
Dissenting - Cardozo, J.
Yes. A bank may resist payment under a letter of credit if it discovers that the merchandise tendered is not what the documents describe. While a bank has no duty to investigate the quality of merchandise, if it chooses to do so and finds that the documents are false because they misrepresent the goods, it should not be compelled to pay a seller who has made a misrepresentation. The bank acts not only on the credit of its customer but also on the credit of the merchandise which serves as security. Forcing payment when the documents are known to be false would allow a delinquent seller to coerce payment based on misrepresented security.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the 'independence principle' as a cornerstone of letter of credit law in the United States. It mandates a strict separation between the financing arrangement (the letter of credit) and the underlying commercial transaction (the sales contract), providing certainty and efficiency in commerce. By limiting the bank's role to a facial examination of documents, the ruling ensures that sellers can rely on prompt payment, which is crucial for international trade. However, Justice Cardozo's dissent is significant as it foreshadows the later development and acceptance of the 'fraud exception,' where a bank may be permitted or required to dishonor a letter of credit if there is clear evidence of fraud in the documents or the underlying transaction.
Unlock the full brief for Maurice O'Meara Co. v. National Park Bank