Banque Worms v BankAmerica International: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Redirected page to Discharge-for-value defense Tag: New redirect |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Removed redirect to Discharge-for-value defense Tag: Removed redirect |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|casenote|}} Banque Worms involved a revolving credit facility between Spedley and the Banque. In 1989 the Banque informed Spedley that it would not be renewing the revolver and demanded payment of the outstanding balance on April 10, 1989. | |||
On 10 April 1989, at 12:36 am, Spedley instructed its bank, SPI, to wire the total amount due to the Banque at its BankAmerica International account. By 3:37 am the same day – not three hours later – Spedley had a change of heart and instructed SPI to stop payment to Banque Worms and instead make a payment in the same amount to National Westminster Bank USA.” | |||
Notwithstanding the second instruction Spedley wired the full amount to BankAmerica. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[discharge-for-value defense]] | |||
Revision as of 16:17, 18 February 2021
|
The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
|
Banque Worms involved a revolving credit facility between Spedley and the Banque. In 1989 the Banque informed Spedley that it would not be renewing the revolver and demanded payment of the outstanding balance on April 10, 1989.
On 10 April 1989, at 12:36 am, Spedley instructed its bank, SPI, to wire the total amount due to the Banque at its BankAmerica International account. By 3:37 am the same day – not three hours later – Spedley had a change of heart and instructed SPI to stop payment to Banque Worms and instead make a payment in the same amount to National Westminster Bank USA.”
Notwithstanding the second instruction Spedley wired the full amount to BankAmerica.