Seattle-First National Bank v. Oregon Pacific Industries case
brief summary
500 P.2d 1033 (1972)
CASE FACTS
The purchaser ordered goods from the seller, who assigned the invoice to the bank and notified the purchaser of the assignment. When the purchaser refused payment, the bank filed an action for payment. The purchaser sought to set off damages it suffered as a result of the seller's failure to deliver additional goods purchased that were not part of the invoice assigned to the bank. The trial court refused to allow the set off because Or. Rev. Stat. § 79.3180(1) provided that the rights of the bank were subject to the claim for set off against the purchaser for claims that did not arise from the assigned invoice only where the claim accrued before the purchaser received notification of the assignment. The parties had stipulated that the breach that the purchaser sought to use as a set off occurred several weeks after the assignment.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the bank and the order denying the purchaser's right to a set off.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
500 P.2d 1033 (1972)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant purchaser appealed from a
judgment of the Circuit Court, Multnomah County (Oregon), which found
in favor of plaintiff bank in its action against the purchaser for
the amount of an invoice assigned to the bank for plywood bought by
the purchaser. The trial court also denied the purchaser's right to a
setoff.CASE FACTS
The purchaser ordered goods from the seller, who assigned the invoice to the bank and notified the purchaser of the assignment. When the purchaser refused payment, the bank filed an action for payment. The purchaser sought to set off damages it suffered as a result of the seller's failure to deliver additional goods purchased that were not part of the invoice assigned to the bank. The trial court refused to allow the set off because Or. Rev. Stat. § 79.3180(1) provided that the rights of the bank were subject to the claim for set off against the purchaser for claims that did not arise from the assigned invoice only where the claim accrued before the purchaser received notification of the assignment. The parties had stipulated that the breach that the purchaser sought to use as a set off occurred several weeks after the assignment.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the bank, holding that the setoff was unrelated to the assignment because it arose from a breach of a contract not connected with the invoice assigned to the bank.
- In that the breach occurred after the purchaser received notification of the assignment, the set off could not be asserted.
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the bank and the order denying the purchaser's right to a set off.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment