Ries Biologicals, Inc. v. Bank of Santa Fe case brief summary
780 F.2d 888 (10th Cir. 1986)
CASE FACTS
The bank contended that the claim of the biologicals corporation was barred by the statute of frauds, that the relationship between the biologicals corporation and the bank did not constitute an open account, that any oral guarantee of the debts of the dialysis management systems corporation by the senior vice-president of the bank was void as an ultra vires act, that the oral agreement was established by inadmissible hearsay, and that the biologicals corporation failed to adequately carry its burden of proving delivery and acceptance of the goods.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, which entered judgment for the biologicals corporation based upon the bank's alleged oral guarantee of payment. The court held that there was substantial evidence to support delivery and acceptance of the goods in question, and that the statute of frauds did not bar recovery.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
780 F.2d 888 (10th Cir. 1986)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant bank sought review of a
decision from the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico, which entered a judgment for appellee biologicals
corporation, based upon the bank's alleged oral guarantee of payment
for supplies delivered by the biologicals corporation to a dialysis
management corporation. The trial court awarded the biologicals
corporation $ 20,276.69 plus interest.CASE FACTS
The bank contended that the claim of the biologicals corporation was barred by the statute of frauds, that the relationship between the biologicals corporation and the bank did not constitute an open account, that any oral guarantee of the debts of the dialysis management systems corporation by the senior vice-president of the bank was void as an ultra vires act, that the oral agreement was established by inadmissible hearsay, and that the biologicals corporation failed to adequately carry its burden of proving delivery and acceptance of the goods.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court rejected these contentions.
- The court held that there was no manifest error in the admission of testimony concerning the oral statements of the bank's senior vice-president.
- The court held that there was substantial evidence to support delivery and acceptance of the goods in question.
- The court held that the statute of frauds did not bar recovery in this matter.
- The court also held that the trial court's conclusion that the relationship between the biologicals corporation and the bank was an open account was consistent with New Mexico law.
- Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, which entered judgment for the biologicals corporation based upon the bank's alleged oral guarantee of payment. The court held that there was substantial evidence to support delivery and acceptance of the goods in question, and that the statute of frauds did not bar recovery.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment