Oscar S. Gray v. American Express Company
743 F.2d 10, 240 U.S. App. D.C. 10, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19033 (1984)
Rule of Law:
The Fair Credit Billing Act prohibits credit card issuers from restricting or closing an account due to a disputed amount until statutory obligations (investigation, explanation) are met, and contractual clauses allowing 'without notice' cancellation do not permit retrospective cancellation or cancellation effective against irreversible transactions completed before the cardholder receives notification.
Facts:
- Oscar Gray had been an American Express cardholder since 1964.
- In 1981, Gray used his card to purchase airline tickets for $9312, arranging to pay in 12 equal installments.
- Gray made substantial prepayments of $3500 and $1156 in January and February 1981, respectively.
- American Express erroneously converted Gray's deferred payment plan to a current charge on his March 1981 bill, leading to a billing dispute.
- Gray sent a letter to American Express on April 22, 1981, specifically complaining about the March bill and the miscrediting of his prepayments.
- The billing dispute continued for over a year, and American Express eventually decided to cancel Gray's card.
- Gray received no notification of the card's cancellation until April 8, 1982, when he offered it to pay for a wedding anniversary dinner he and his wife had already consumed.
- The restaurant informed Gray that American Express had refused the charge and instructed them to confiscate and destroy his card, and an American Express employee on the phone confirmed the account was 'cancelled as of now'.
Procedural Posture:
- Oscar Gray filed a complaint in federal District Court, asserting claims against American Express under the Fair Credit Billing Act (invoking federal question jurisdiction) and for breach of contract (invoking diversity jurisdiction).
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of American Express, dismissing Oscar Gray's entire complaint.
- Oscar Gray (appellant) appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
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 credit card issuer violate the Fair Credit Billing Act or breach its Cardmember Agreement by unilaterally canceling a card without prior communication to the cardholder, particularly when a billing dispute is pending and the cardholder attempts to use the card for an already-completed transaction?
Opinions:
Majority - Mikva, Circuit Judge
Yes, American Express violated the Fair Credit Billing Act and breached the Cardmember Agreement's implied terms by failing to properly address Gray's billing dispute and by effecting a cancellation without communicating it to Gray before he incurred charges for a completed transaction. The court found that Gray's April 22, 1981, letter constituted proper notification of a billing error under 15 U.S.C. § 1666(a), thereby triggering the procedural protections of the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA). Under FCBA § 1666(d), a card issuer cannot restrict or close an account due to a cardholder's failure to pay a disputed amount until the issuer fulfills its statutory obligations, such as investigation and written explanation. American Express's argument that its contractual 'without notice, without cause' cancellation clause overrides the Act is inconsistent with congressional intent to prevent evasion and protect consumers, as waiver of statutory rights, especially in a contract of adhesion, is disfavored. Regarding the contract claim, applying New York law (due to a choice-of-law clause), the court held that the 'without notice' provision in the Cardmember Agreement cannot be interpreted to allow cancellation to be effective retrospectively or against irreversible transactions completed before the cardholder receives actual notification of the decision to cancel. Such an interpretation would defy reasonable expectations of the parties, render the contract illusory, and is inconsistent with the principle that contracts of adhesion should be construed narrowly against the drafter. While the decision to cancel can be unilateral and instantaneous, it must be communicated to the cardholder to be effective against new transactions. Communication through a merchant after a transaction (like a consumed meal) is too late to void the credit for that specific transaction. The court concluded that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment and remanded the case for trial on both the statutory and contract claims, also noting American Express's excessive discovery practices.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the scope of 'without notice' cancellation clauses in consumer contracts of adhesion, particularly within the credit card industry. It reinforces the consumer protections afforded by the Fair Credit Billing Act, clarifying that card issuers cannot circumvent statutory obligations to resolve billing disputes through general contractual language. The decision emphasizes the importance of actual communication for contract termination to be effective, preventing an internal decision from impacting completed, irreversible transactions. This precedent guides future interpretations of similar contractual clauses, promoting fairness and preventing illusory promises in consumer agreements.
