Benetton Services Corp. v. Benedot, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 September 1989 |
| Citation | Benetton Services Corp. v. Benedot, Inc., 551 So.2d 295 (Ala. 1989) |
| Parties | 9 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1314 BENETTON SERVICES CORPORATION v. BENEDOT, INC., and Southland Bank of Dothan. 88-721. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James D. Farmer of Farmer & Farmer, Dothan, for appellant.
William C. Carn III of Lee & McInish, Dothan, for appellees.
Benetton Services Corporation("Benetton"), an Italian clothing manufacturer and distributor, appeals from an order enjoining it from drawing on an irrevocable letter of credit issued by Southland Bank of Dothan ("Southland") on behalf of Benedot, Inc.("Benedot").
Benedot was formed for the purpose of selling Benetton clothing at retail.The agreement between Benedot and Benetton provided that Benedot would sell only Benetton clothing.Benedot opened a retail outlet in Dothan and one in Auburn.
Benedot placed several orders with Benetton over a period of approximately 36 months.All of the orders were delivered late, and all contained some non-conforming merchandise.Benedot's account with Benetton became past due in the amount of approximately $140,000, although the exact past due amount was disputed by Benedot.
Benedot was told by Benetton that Benetton had made changes in personnel, and that future orders would be conforming and would be delivered on time.Benedot placed a "spring/summer 1988" order with Benetton.
As a condition to shipping Benedot's order, Benetton required Benedot to pay $20,000, and to have issued to Benetton an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $61,000.Pursuant to Benedot's request, Southland issued an irrevocable letter of credit to Benetton.The letter of credit provided:
The spring/summer 1988 order was delivered late and it contained nonconforming goods.Benedot accepted the shipment, as it had accepted the earlier orders, notwithstanding its nonconformity.At the hearing on the injunction request, Benedot explained that it had accepted the merchandise because it was very difficult and expensive to return the goods to Italy and that Benetton had requested that Benedot sell the goods.
When Benedot's account regarding the spring/summer 1988 order became 60 days past due, Benetton drew a draft against the letter of credit.On February 28, 1989, Benetton presented the draft and the required documentation to Southland in compliance with the terms of the letter of credit.Southland refused to pay Benetton under the terms of the letter of credit and advised it that a temporary restraining order had been issued pursuant to Rule 65(b), A.R.Civ.P., enjoining Southland from making payment thereunder.
A hearing was held, and the trial court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining Benetton from drawing upon, and Southland from honoring, the letter of credit.The trial court further ordered Southland to pay the amount of the drafts into court within seven days of the order granting the injunction.Benetton appeals.
Benedot filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, contending that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the case because the order appealed from is an interlocutory order.
An appeal to this Court, as a general rule, will not lie from an order or judgment that is not final and conclusive.Ala.Code 1975, § 12-22-2.However, this Court does have jurisdiction over an appeal "from any interlocutory order granting, continuing, modifying, refusing, or dissolving an injunction."SeeRule 4(a)(1)(A), A.R.App.P.Therefore, this case is properly before this Court.
Payment under an irrevocable letter of credit, upon compliance with its terms, is independent of the underlying contract.Bank of the Southeast v. Jackson, 413 So.2d 1091(Ala.1982).The issuer of a letter of credit must honor a draft drawn thereunder that complies with the terms of the letter of credit, regardless of whether the goods or documents conform to the underlying contract.Code 1975, § 7-5-114.
Because the letter of credit represents an independent obligation of the issuer to the beneficiary, payment under an irrevocable letter of credit may not be enjoined absent evidence of forgery or fraud in the issuance of the letter or fraud in the underlying transaction for which the letter of credit was issued.See, Citronelle Unit Operators Committee v. AmSouth Bank, N.A.,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Ala. River Grp., Inc. v. Conecuh Timber, Inc.
...and ... proof that the defendant had an intent to deceive." Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted); Benetton Servs. Corp. v. Benedot, Inc., 551 So.2d 295, 298 (Ala. 1989) ; Southland Bank v. A & A Drywall Supply Co., 21 So.3d 1196, 1210–12 (Ala. 2008).The ARG defendants argue that the ......
-
Southland Bank v. A & a Drywall Supply
...[Graham Foods' representatives]. Reckless misrepresentation will not support a charge of promissory fraud. Benetton Services Corp. v. Benedot, Inc., 551 So.2d 295 (Ala.1989); Kennedy Electric Co. v. Inc., 437 So.2d 76 (Ala.1983). Thus, the assurances that Graham Foods would receive the loan......
-
Mid-America Tire, Inc. v. PTZ Trading Ltd.
...payment where there has been a fraud in the issuance of the letter or a fraud in the underlying transaction. Benetton Services Corp. v. Benedot, Inc., 551 So.2d 295 (Ala.1989). Section 7-5-102(4), however, specifically states that Article 5, including § 7-5-114(2), is inapplicable when lett......
-
State ex rel. Marshall v. Ty Green's Massage Therapy, Inc.
...the same thing: "Irreparable injury is injury that can not be adequately compensated for by damages at law." Benetton Servs. Corp. v. Benedot, Inc., 551 So. 2d 295, 299 (Ala. 1989). " ‘To say that the injury is ir reparable means that the methods of repair (remedies at law) are inadequate.’......