Jupiter Orrington Corp. v. Zweifel

• Decision Date: 22 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-2562,83-2562
• Citation: 469 N.E.2d 590,82 Ill.Dec. 946,127 Ill.App.3d 559
• Parties: , 82 Ill.Dec. 946, 40 UCC Rep.Serv. 256 JUPITER ORRINGTON CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas R. ZWEIFEL, as Representative of the Estate of Earl T. Zweifel, Peoria Motors, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, and The First National Bank of Chicago, Defendant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 590

469 N.E.2d 590

127 Ill.App.3d 559, 82 Ill.Dec. 946,

40 UCC Rep.Serv. 256

JUPITER ORRINGTON CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas R. ZWEIFEL, as Representative of the Estate of Earl T. Zweifel, Peoria Motors, Inc., Defendants-Appellants and The First National Bank of Chicago, Defendant.

No. 83-2562.

Appellate Court of Illinois First District, Fifth Division.

June 22, 1984.

[82 Ill.Dec. 947] Herbert B. Olfson, Robert C. Keck, Jr., Sidney I. Schenkier, Chicago, for defendants-appellants; Jenner & Block, Chicago, of counsel

Ronald Barliant, Barry A. Miller, Lawrence M. Knowles, Miller, Shakman, Nathan & Hamilton, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.

MEJDA, Presiding Justice:

Defendants, Thomas R. Zweifel, as administrator of the estate of Earl T. Zweifel, and Peoria Motors, Inc., appeal from an order of the circuit court of Cook County granting a preliminary injunction which enjoined them from presenting a $2,685,000 letter of credit to The First National Bank of Chicago ("the bank") and enjoined the bank from honoring any attempt to draw on the letter of credit. The sole issue presented for review is whether the circuit court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction. We reverse and remand.

Plaintiff delivered to Earl T. Zweifel and Peoria Motors, Inc., a note in the amount of $2,685,000 in connection with the purchase of the Orrington Hotel in Evanston, Illinois. The note provided that plaintiff's obligation "shall at all times be secured by an irrevocable standby letter of credit in the amount of the principal balance hereon from an institution satisfactory to [defendants] in a form satisfactory to [defendants]." The note further provided that "[s]hould said letter of credit at any time have a termination date of earlier than November 15, 1992, it shall be a default hereunder if [plaintiff] shall not, on or prior to the fortieth day preceding the termination date of said letter of credit, provide to [defendants] a new letter of credit meeting the requirements hereof." In brief, the evidence introduced by the parties indicated that a renewal letter of credit was not provided within forty days of the expiration date of the original letter of credit and that defendants indicated their intent to present the letter of credit to the bank for payment. Plaintiff brought this action seeking to enjoin defendants from presenting the letter of credit to the bank and to enjoin the bank from honoring it if presented.

At the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, various witnesses testified concerning the tender of an amended letter of credit to Zweifel and whether the amendment was accepted. The parties also introduced evidence concerning the extension of a ten-day cure period, and discussions between bank personnel and representatives of defendants.

The trial court heard arguments concerning various contract defenses, including waiver and estoppel, and entered an order granting a preliminary injunction finding that: plaintiff had a protectible right;

[82 Ill.Dec. 948] plaintiff would suffer specified irreparable injuries; plaintiff had no adequate remedy at law; and the equities favored plaintiff. This appeal followed.

OPINION

Defendants contend that the circuit court erred in entering the preliminary injunction in the absence of evidence indicating fraud in the transaction or a likelihood that presentment would fail to conform to the terms of the letter of credit. Plaintiff addresses these arguments on their merits but also raises the threshold issue of whether general contract law or the rules applicable to letter of credit transactions should govern the disposition of this case.

The instant case is distinguishable from the typical posture of letter of credit transactions which have reached the reviewing courts of this state in that the beneficiary of the letter of credit, rather than the issuer of the credit, is the party who has been enjoined. ¹ (Compare, e.g., Pastor v. National Republic Bank of Chicago (1979), 76 Ill.2d 139, 28 Ill.Dec. 535, 390 N.E.2d 894; First Arlington National Bank v. Stathis (1983), 115 Ill.App.3d 403, 71 Ill.Dec. 145, 450 N.E.2d 833; Professional Modular Surface, Inc. v. Uniroyal, Inc. (1982), 108 Ill.App.3d 1046, 64 Ill.Dec. 625, 440 N.E.2d 177; Stringer Construction Co. v. American Insurance Co. (1981), 102 Ill.App.3d 919, 58 Ill.Dec. 59, 430 N.E.2d 1; and First Arlington National Bank v. Stathis (1980), 90 Ill.App.3d 802, 46 Ill.App. 175, 413 N.E.2d 1288 with Edgewater Construction Co. v. Percy Wilson Mortgage & Finance Corp. (1976), 44 Ill.App.3d 220, 2 Ill.Dec. 864, 357 N.E.2d 1307.) Plaintiff argues, based on that fact, that traditional contract law should govern this case. More specifically, plaintiff argues that because defendants have not yet presented the credit and demanded payment the instant dispute implicates only the underlying contract and not the independent contract (represented by the letter of credit) which secures performance of the primary contract.

Analysis of this contention would be aided at this point by a brief review of the basic structure of a typical letter of credit transaction.

"Three separate agreements are involved in the issuance of a letter of credit by the bank for the benefit of a beneficiary. [Citation.] The first is the contract between the beneficiary * * * and the customer * * *, which is the agreement underlying the letter of credit. Under the second contract, the customer procures a letter of credit, often from a bank, in return for consideration or collateral. The third agreement consists of the bank's agreement to pay the beneficiary the amount of the letter of credit, if the beneficiary complies with the terms of the credit." (Baker v. National Boulevard Bank of Chicago (N.D.Ill.1975), 399 F.Supp. 1021, 1024.)

The type of letter of credit which is at issue in the case sub judice is a standby letter of credit. The typical standby letter of credit obligates the issuer to pay the beneficiary upon presentation of documents specified in the credit which indicate that a default has occurred. (First Arlington National Bank v. Stathis (1980), 90 Ill.App.3d 802, 807, 46 Ill.Dec. 175, 413 N.E.2d 1288.) The general rule is that if the documents presented conform to the requirements of the credit, the issuer is not permitted to refer to the underlying contract between its customer and the beneficiary of the credit to determine whether to honor the demand for payment. (First Arlington National Bank v. Stathis (1980), 90 Ill.App.3d 802, 808, 46 Ill.App. 175, 413 N.E.2d 1288.) This rule is known as the independence principle and requires the issuer of the credit to pay the beneficiary even where the beneficiary nonfraudulently breached the underlying contract. (First Arlington National Bank.) With these principles in mind, we now turn to an analysis of plaintiff's contention.

Plaintiff argues that because the credit has not yet been presented to the bank (the issuer), the bank has no duty to pay, and the dispute concerns only defendants' right to make a demand. Thus, argues plaintiff, the instant suit turns on the construction of the underlying contract and principles of contract law therefore govern the case. Defendants respond that plaintiff has not sought a declaration of rights under the contract or an injunction against prospective breach ...