Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
I.
II.
5) RP VS BAGTAS
Issue: As the death of the bull was due to force majeure, is B
relieved from the duty of paying its value?
Held: No. A contract of commodatum is essentially gratuitous. If the
breeding fee be considered compensation, then the contract would be
a lease of the bull. Under Article 1671 of the Civil Code, the lessee
would be subject to the responsibilities of a possessor in bad faith
because she had continued possession of the bull after the expiration
of the contract. And even if the contract be commodatum, still B is
liable under Article 1942(2, 3) Recall: PDALI under 1942
6) CATHOLIC VICAR VS CA
The bailees' failure to return the subject matter of commodatum to
the bailor did not mean adverse possession on the part of the
borrower. The bailee held in trust the property subject matter of
commodatum. The adverse claim of petitioner came only in 1951 when
it declared the lots for taxation purposes. The action of petitioner Vicar
by such adverse claim could not ripen into title by way of ordinary
acquisitive prescription because of the absence of just title.
1) PAJUYO VS CA
1935 USE OF THE THING LOANED; ESSENTIALLY GRATUITOUS
The Kasunduan was not essentially gratuitous for while it did not
require Guevarra to pay rent, it obligated him to maintain the property
in good condition. The imposition of this obligation makes it a contract
different from a commodatum. The effects of the Kasunduan are also
different from that of a commodatum. Case law on ejectment has
treated relationship based on tolerance as one that is akin to a
landlord-tenant relationship where the withdrawal of permission would
result in the termination of the lease. The tenants withholding of the
property would then be unlawful.
7) QUINTOS VS BECK
Held: Gratuitous use of furniture was subject to the condition that
lessee would return them upon lessors demand (precarium) but
notwithstanding such demand, former continued to use furniture until
expiration of lease.
2) PRODUCERS BANK VS CA
No stipulation as to period
Stipulation as to period
3) MINA VS PASCUAL
Held: An example of commodatum involving real property is when a
person allowed another to build a warehouse on the formers land so
that the latter may use the property for a certain period without any
payment of rentals. If no time for use of the land is specified, the
contract would be that specie of commodatum which is called
precarium under 1947. If rental is paid, the contract would be one of
lease.
The ruling of the trial judge that ownership of the cash advanced to the
petitioner by private respondent was not transferred to the latter is
erroneous. Ownership of the money was transferred to the
petitioner. Since ownership of the money (cash advance) was
transferred to petitioner, no fiduciary relationship was created. Absent
this fiduciary relationship between petitioner and PR, which is an
essential element of the crime of estafa by misappropriation or
conversion, petitioner could not have committed estafa.
RETURN
THE
THING
SUBJECT
OF
2) BPI VS CA
1
Credit Transactions
LOAN IS A REAL CONTRACT PERFECTED BY DELIVERY.
the loan contract between BPI, on the one hand, and ALS and Litonjua,
on the other, was perfected only on September 13, 1982, the date of
the second release of the loan. Following the intentions of the parties
on the commencement of the monthly amortization, PRs obligation to
pay commenced only on October 13, 1982, a month after the
perfection of the contract.
The promise of BPIIC to extend and deliver the loan is upon the
consideration that ALS and Litonjua shall pay the monthly amortization
commencing on May 1, 1981, one month after the supposed release of
the loan. It is a basic principle in reciprocal obligations that neither
party incurs in delay, if the other does not comply or is not ready to
comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him
5) PNB VS IBARROLA
The case at bench does not involve a loan. Forbearance of money
or judgment involving a loan or forbearance of money as it arose
from a contract of sale whereby Ibarrola did not receive full
payment for her merchandise. When an obligation arises from a
contract of purchase and sale and not from a contract of loan or
mutuum, the applicable rate is 6% per annum as provided in Article
2209 of the NCC and not the rate of 12% per annum as provided in
(CB) Cir. No. 416
1.
2.
3.
6) MEDEL VS CA
stipulated rate of interest at 5.5% per month on the P500,000.00 loan
is excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. However, we
can not consider the rate "usurious" because this Court has
consistently held that Circular No. 905 of the Central Bank, adopted on
December 22, 1982, has expressly removed the interest ceilings
prescribed by the Usury Law and that the Usury Law is now "legally
inexistent."
SC previously held that the circular did not repeal nor in any way
amend the Usury Law but simply suspended the latters effectivity."
"Usury has been legally non-existent in our jurisdiction. Interest can
now be charged as lender and borrower may agree upon."
7) TOLEDO VS HYDEN
The 6% to 7% interest per month paid by Jocelyn is not excessive
under the circumstances of this case.
in Medel v. Court of Appeals,[16] we annulled a stipulated 5.5% per
month or 66% per annum interest with additional service charge of 2%
per annum and penalty charge of 1% per month on a P500,000.00 loan
for being excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant.
In this case, however, we cannot consider the disputed 6% to 7%
monthly interest rate to be iniquitous or unconscionable vis--vis the
principle laid down in Medel. Noteworthy is the fact that in Medel, the
defendant-spouses were never able to pay their indebtedness from the
very beginning and when their obligations ballooned into a staggering
sum, the creditors filed a collection case against them. In this case, It
was clearly shown that before Jocelyn availed of said loans, she knew
fully well that the same carried with it an interest rate of 6% to 7% per
month, yet she did not complain. In fact, when she availed of said
loans, an advance interest of 6% to 7% was already deducted from the
loan amount, yet she never uttered a word of protest.
Here, the interest rate applicable is 6% p.a. since the contract is sale
and transportation of goods.
4) CRISMINA GARMENTS VS CA
Because the amount due in this case arose from a contract for a
piece of work, not from a loan or forbearance of money, the legal
interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be applied.
Furthermore, since the amount of the demand could be established
with certainty when the Complaint was filed, the six percent (6%)
interest should be computed from the filing of the said Complaint. But
after the judgment becomes final and executory until the obligation is
satisfied, the interest should be reckoned at twelve percent (12%) per
year.
Credit Transactions
requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a loan or debt then due
and payable.
This definition describes a loan where a debtor is given a period within
which to pay a loan or debt. In such case, forbearance of money,
goods or credits will have no distinct definition from a loan. We believe
however, that this is meant to have a separate meaning from a loan,
otherwise there would have been no need to add that phrase as a loan
is already sufficiently defined in the Civil Code.[34]
the lower courts because it did not express the real intention of the
parties, is substantial proof that the bank lending rate at the time of
default was 18% per annum. Absent any evidence of fraud, undue
influence or any vice of consent exercised by petitioners against the
respondent, the interest rate agreed upon is binding on them
10)
PRISMA VS MENCHAVEZ
11)
Article 1956 of the Civil Code, which refers to monetary interest,
specifically mandates that no interest shall be due unless it has been
expressly stipulated in writing. Therefore, payment of monetary interest
is allowed only if:
(1) there was an express stipulation for the payment of interest; and
(2) the agreement for the payment of interest was reduced in writing.
The concurrence of the two conditions is required for the
payment of monetary interest.[33]
In case of default, the consent of the respondent is not needed in order
to impose interest at the current bank lending rate.
PILIPINAS BANK VS CA
RULING:
Note that Circular No. 416, fixing the rate of interest at 12% per
annum, deals with (1) loans; (2) forbearance of any money, goods or
credit; and (3) Judgments
SC previously held that judgments spoken of and referred to in Circular
No. 416 are "judgments in litigation involving loans or forbearance of
any money, goods or credits. Any other kind of monetary judgment
which has nothing to do with nor involving loans or forbearance of any
money, goods or credits does not fall within the coverage of the said
law for it is not, within the ambit of the authority granted to the Central
Bank
Circular No. 416 does not apply to judgments involving damages and
compensation in expropriation proceedings; also payment of
unliquidated cash advances to an employee by his employer, and the
return of money paid by a buyer of a leasehold right but which contract
was voided due to the fault of the seller.
What then is the nature of the judgment ordering PB to pay Echaus the
amount of 2.3m?
The said amount was a portion of the P7,776,335.69 which petitioner
was obligated to pay Greatland as consideration for the sale of several
parcels of land by Greatland to petitioner. The amount of
P2,300,000.00 was assigned by Greatland in favor of private
respondent. The said obligation therefore arose from a contract of
purchase and sale and not from a contract of loan or mutuum. Hence,
what is applicable is the rate of 6% per annum as provided in Article
2209 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and not the rate of 12% per
annum as provided in Circular No. 416.
Credit Transactions
transferred from one person to another and the obligation to
return the same or a portion thereof is subsequently adjudged.
12)
The evidence shows that it was indeed the respondents who proposed
the 5% interest rate per month for two (2) months. Having agreed to
said rate, the parties are now estopped from claiming otherwise. For
the succeeding period after the two months, however, the Court of
Appeals correctly reduced the interest rate to 12% per annum and the
penalty rate to 1% per month, in accordance with Article 2227[18] of
the Civil Code.
15)
13)
CHUA VS TIMAN
To recapitulate and for future guidance, the guidelines laid down in the
case of Eastern Shipping Lines 42 are accordingly modified to embody
BSP-MB Circular No. 799, as follows:
I.
When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e.,
law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts or quasidelicts is breached, the contravenor can be held
liable for damages. The provisions under Title
XVIII on "Damages" of the Civil Code govern in
determining the measure of recoverable
damages.1wphi1
II.
With regard particularly to an award of interest in
the concept of actual and compensatory damages,
the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof,
is imposed, as follows:
While C.B. Circular No. 905-82, which took effect on January 1, 1983,
effectively removed the ceiling on interest rates for both secured and
unsecured loans, regardless of maturity, nothing in the said circular
could possibly be read as granting carte blanche authority to lenders to
raise interest rates to levels which would either enslave their borrowers
or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets.
14)
Central Bank Circular No. 905, which took effect on January 1, 1983,
effectively removed the ceiling on interest rates for both secured and
unsecured loans, regardless of maturity. However, nothing in said
Circular grants lenders carte blanche authority to impose interest
rates which would result in the enslavement of their borrowers or
to the hemorrhaging of their assets. What is iniquitous,
unconscionable, and exorbitant shall depend upon the factual
circumstances of each case.
In the instant case, the CA found that the 5% interest rate per month
and 5% penalty rate per month for every month of default or delay is in
reality interest rate at 120% per annum. This Court has held that a
stipulated interest rate of 5.5% per month or 66% per annum is void for
being iniquitous or unconscionable. Likewise, rate of 6% per month or
72% per annum is outrageous and inordinate. Conformably to these
precedent cases, a combined interest and penalty rate at 10% per
month or 120% per annum, should be deemed iniquitous,
unconscionable, and inordinate.
Credit Transactions
16)
interest rate to be earned but also the manner of earning the same, if it
is to be compounded. Failure to specify the manner of earning interest,
however, shall not automatically render the stipulation imposing the
interest rate void since it is readily apparent from the contract itself that
the parties herein agreed for the loan to bear interest. Instead, in
default of any stipulation on the manner of earning interest, simple
interest shall accrue.
17)
19)
The penalty charge of two percent (2%) per month in the case at bar
began to accrue from the time of default by the petitioner. There is no
doubt that the petitioner is liable for both the stipulated monetary
interest and the stipulated penalty charge (aka penalty or
compensatory interest).
next issue to be resolved is whether interest may accrue on the penalty
or compensatory interest without violating the provisions of Article
1959? YES
Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 2212, interest due and
unpaid shall not earn interest. However, the contracting parties may by
stipulation capitalize the interest due and unpaid, which as added
principal, shall earn new interest.
20)
SIGA-AN VS VILLANUEVA
18)
TAN VS CA
Credit Transactions
b. VOLUNTARY DEPOSIT
1) CHAN VS MACEDA
NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT BETWEEN SPS CHAN AND MACEDA.
Under Article 1311 of the Civil Code, contracts are binding upon the
parties (and their assigns and heirs) who execute them. When there is
no privity of contract, there is likewise no obligation or liability to speak
about and thus no cause of action arises. Specifically, in an action
against the depositary, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the
bailment or deposit and the performance of conditions precedent
to the right of action.39 A depositary is obliged to return the thing to
the depositor, or to his heirs or successors, or to the person who may
have been designated in the contract.40
3) SIA VS CA
In the present case, the record is bereft of any contract of deposit, oral
or written, between petitioners and respondent. If at all, it was only
between petitioners and Moreman. And granting arguendo that there
was indeed a contract of deposit between petitioners and Moreman, it
is still incumbent upon respondent to prove its existence and that it was
executed in his favor. However, respondent miserably failed to do so.
The only pieces of evidence respondent presented to prove the
contract of deposit were the delivery receipts.41 Significantly, they
are unsigned and not duly received or authenticated by either
Moreman, petitioners or respondent or any of their authorized
representatives. Hence, those delivery receipts have no probative
value at all; every cause of action ex-contractu must be founded upon
a contract, oral or written, express or implied.
2) CA AGRO INDUSTRIAL VS CA
The contract for the rent of the safety deposit box is not an ordinary
contract of lease as defined in article 1643 of the civil code. However,
We do not fully subscribe to its view that the same is a contract of
deposit that is to be strictly governed by the provisions in the Civil
Code on deposit; 19the contract in the case at bar is a special kind of
deposit.
4) BARON VS DAVID
Under article 1768 of the Civil Code, when the depository has
permission to make use of the thing deposited, the contract loses
the character of mere deposit and becomes a loan or a
commodatum; and of course by appropriating the thing, the bailee
becomes responsible for its value. In this connection we wholly
reject the defendant's pretense that the palay delivered by the plaintiffs
or any part of it was actually consumed in the fire of January, 1921. Nor
is the liability of the defendant in any wise affected by the circumstance
that, by a custom prevailing among rice millers in this country, persons
placing palay with them without special agreement as to price are at
liberty to withdraw it later, proper allowance being made for storage
and shrinkage, a thing that is sometimes done, though rarely.
20
5) JAVELLANA VS LIM
Credit Transactions
CONTRACT; BAILMENT OR DEPOSIT; LOAN.Where money,
consisting of coins of legal tender, is deposited with a person and the
latter is authorized by the depositor to use and dispose of the same,
the agreement thus entered into between the depositor and the
depositary is not a contract of deposit, but a loan.
provisions of the contract and cannot seek restitution until the time for
payment, as provided in the contract, has arisen. It is apparent from
the terms of this document that the plaintiff could not demand his
money at any time. He was bound to give notice of his desire for its
return and then to wait for six months before he could insist upon
payment.
8) BPI VS CA 1994
6) ROGERS VS SMITH
bank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits; they are really
loans because they earn interest. The relationship then between a
depositor and a bank is one of creditor and debtor. The deposit under
the questioned account was an ordinary bank deposit; hence, it was
payable on demand of the depositor. Because the ownership of the
deposit remained undetermined, BPI, as the debtor, had no right to pay
to persons other than those in whose favor the obligation was
constituted or whose right or authority to receive payment is
indisputable. Payment made by the debtor to the wrong party does not
extinguish the obligation as to the creditor who is without fault or
negligence, even if the debtor acted in utmost good faith and by
mistake as to the person of the creditor, or through error induced by
fraud of a third person. The payment then by BPI to the heirs of
Velasco, even if done in good faith, did not extinguish its obligation to
the true depositor, Eastern.
LOAN
As to benefits
accrued
As to
Demandabilit
y
depositor can
demand the return
of the article at any
time
As to
Preference of
Credit
depositor has a
preference over
other creditors
9) METROBANK VS BA FINANCE
the obligation in this case did not arise out of a loan or forbearance of
money, goods, or credits. They did not have a bank deposit in this
account, no creditor and debtor relationship. Article 1980 is not
applicable since the nature of the relationship between B.A. Finance
and petitioner is one of agency. Whereby petitioner, as collecting bank,
was to collect for B.A. Finance the corresponding proceeds of the
check. Not being a loan or forbearance of money, interest is 6% per
annum from the day of extrajudicial demand until finality of judgment
and 12% from finality until payment.
10) REYES VS CA
The degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of a good
father of a family where the fiduciary nature of their relationship with
their depositors is concerned. In other words banks are duty bound to
treat the deposit accounts of their depositors with the highest degree of
care. But the said ruling applies only to cases where banks act under
their fiduciary capacity, that is, as depositary of the deposits of their
depositors. But the same higher degree of diligence is not expected to
be exerted by banks in commercial transactions that do not involve
their fiduciary relationship with their depositors. The case at bar does
not involve the handling of petitioners' deposit. Instead, the relationship
involved was that of a buyer and seller, that is, between the respondent
bank as the seller of the subject foreign exchange demand draft.
Hence, respondent bank was not required to exert more than the
diligence of a good father of a family in regard to the sale and issuance
of the subject FXDD.
when private respondent David invested his money with NSLA, the
contract that was perfected was a contract of simple loan or mutuum
and not a contract of deposit. Thus, Article 1980 of the New Civil Code
provides that fixed, savings, and current deposits of-money in banks
and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning
Nor does the contract in question fulfill the third requisite indicated by
Manresa, which is, in an irregular deposit, the depositor can demand
the return of the article at any time, while a lender is bound by the
Credit Transactions
simple loan. Bank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits.
They are really 'loans because they earn interest. All kinds of bank
deposits, whether fixed, savings, or current are to be treated as loans
and are to be covered by the law on loans. Current and saving
deposits, are loans to a bank because it can use the same. Hence, the
relationship between the private respondent and the Nation Savings
and Loan Association is that of creditor and debtor; consequently, the
ownership of the amount deposited was transmitted to the Bank upon
the perfection of the contract and it can make use of the amount
deposited for its banking operations, such as to pay interests on
deposits and to pay withdrawals.
d. SEQUESTRATION OR JUDICIAL
DEPOSIT
1) LOS BANOS VS AFRICA
While the Bank has the obligation to return the amount deposited, it
has, however, no obligation to return or deliver the same money that
was deposited. And the failure of the Bank to return the amount
deposited will not constitute estafa through misappropriation
punishable under Article 315, par. l(b) of the Revised Penal Code, but it
will only give rise to civil liability.
c. NECESSARY DEPOSIT
1) DURBAN APARTMENTS VS PIONEER
1)
2) YHT REALTY VS CA
Art 2180, par (4) of the same Code provides that the owners and
managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible
for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches
in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Given the fact that the loss of McLoughlins money was consummated
Credit Transactions
not expressed to be absolute, whenever such title is in substance
taken or retained for security only.
2)
3)
LANDBANK VS PEREZ
Considering that the goods in this case were never intended for sale
but for use in the fabrication of steel communication towers, the trial
court erred in ruling that the agreement is a trust receipt transaction.
Thus, in concluding that the transaction was a loan and not a trust
receipt, we noted in Colinares that the industry or line of work that the
borrowers were engaged in was construction. We pointed out that the
borrowers were not importers acquiring goods for resale. Indeed,
goods sold in retail are often within the custody or control of the trustee
until they are purchased. In the case of materials used in the
manufacture of finished products, these finished products if not the
raw materials or their components similarly remain in the possession
of the trustee until they are sold. But the goods and the materials that
are used for a construction project are often placed under the control
and custody of the clients employing the contractor, who can only be
compelled to return the materials if they fail to pay the contractor and
often only after the requisite legal proceedings. The contractors
difficulty and uncertainty in claiming these materials (or the buildings
and structures which they become part of), as soon as the bank
demands them, disqualify them from being covered by trust receipt
agreements.19
Credit Transactions
to pay plaintiff bank the amounts of the drafts drawn by Nisso (sic)
Company, Ltd. against said plaintiff bank together with any accruing
commercial charges, interest, etc. pursuant to the terms and conditions
stipulated in the Application and Agreement of Commercial Letter of
Credit Annex "A".
bottom a security title, as it has sometimes been called, and the banker
is always under the obligation to reconvey; but only after his advances
have been fully repaid and after the importer has fulfilled the other
terms of the contract.
As further stated in National Bank vs. Viuda e Hijos de Angel Jose, 22
trust receipts:
. . . In the instant case the drafts being at sight, they are supposed to
be payable upon acceptance unless plaintiff bank has given the
Philippine Rayon Mills Inc. time within which to pay the same. The first
two drafts (Annexes C & D, Exh. X & X-1) were duly accepted as
indicated on their face (sic), and upon such acceptance should have
been paid forthwith. These two drafts were not paid and although
Philippine Rayon Mills
ought to have paid the same, the fact remains that until now they are
still unpaid. 16
Commercial letters of credit have come into general use in international
sales transactions where much time necessarily elapses between the
sale and the receipt by a purchaser of the merchandise, during which
interval great price changes may occur. Buyers and sellers struggle for
the advantage of position. The seller is desirous of being paid as surely
and as soon as possible, realizing that the vendee at a distant point
has it in his power to reject on trivial grounds merchandise on arrival,
and cause considerable hardship to the shipper. Letters of credit meet
this condition by affording celerity and certainty of payment. Their
purpose is to insure to a seller payment of a definite amount upon
presentation of documents. The bank deals only with documents. It has
nothing to do with the quality of the merchandise. Disputes as to the
merchandise shipped may arise and be litigated later between vendor
and vendee, but they may not impede acceptance of drafts and
payment by the issuing bank when the proper documents are
presented.
The trial court and the public respondent likewise erred in disregarding
the trust receipt and in not holding that Philippine Rayon was liable
thereon. In People vs. Yu Chai Ho, 20 this Court explains the nature of
a trust receipt by quoting In re Dunlap Carpet Co., 21 thus:
By this arrangement a banker advances money to an intending
importer, and thereby lends the aid of capital, of credit, or of business
facilities and agencies abroad, to the enterprise of foreign commerce.
Much of this trade could hardly be carried on by any other means, and
therefore it is of the first importance that the fundamental factor in the
transaction, the banker's advance of money and credit, should receive
the amplest protection. Accordingly, in order to secure that the banker
shall be repaid at the critical point that is, when the imported goods
finally reach the hands of the intended vendee the banker takes the
full title to the goods at the very beginning; he takes it as soon as the
goods are bought and settled for by his payments or acceptances in
the foreign country, and he continues to hold that title as his
indispensable security until the goods are sold in the United States and
the vendee is called upon to pay for them. This security is not an
ordinary pledge by the importer to the banker, for the importer has
never owned the goods, and moreover he is not able to deliver the
possession; but the security is the complete title vested originally in the
bankers, and this characteristic of the transaction has again and again
been recognized and protected by the courts. Of course, the title is at
We also conclude, for the reason hereinafter discussed, and not for
that adduced by the public respondent, that private respondent Chi's
signature in the dorsal portion of the trust receipt did not bind him
solidarily with Philippine Rayon.
10
Credit Transactions
Once the credit is established, the seller ships the goods to the buyer
and in the process secures the required shipping documents or
documents of title. To get paid, the seller executes a draft and presents
it together with the required documents to the issuing bank. The
issuing bank redeems the draft and pays cash to the seller if it finds
that the documents submitted by the seller conform with what the letter
of credit requires. The bank then obtains possession of the documents
upon paying the seller. The transaction is completed when the buyer
reimburses the issuing bank and acquires the documents entitling him
to the goods. Under this arrangement, the seller gets paid only if he
delivers the documents of title over the goods, while the buyer acquires
said documents and control over the goods only after reimbursing the
bank.
11
Credit Transactions
draft and the documents.) As a negotiating bank, Bank of America has
a right to recourse against the issuer bank and until reimbursement is
obtained, Inter-Resin, as the drawer of the draft, continues to assume a
contingent liability thereon. 31
While bank of America has indeed failed to allege material facts in its
complaint that might have likewise warranted the application of the
Negotiable Instruments Law and possible then allowed it to even go
after the indorsers of the draft, this failure, 32/ nonetheless, does not
preclude petitioner bank's right (as negotiating bank) of recovery from
Inter-Resin itself. Inter-Resin admits having received P10,219,093.20
from bank of America on the letter of credit and in having executed the
corresponding draft. The payment to Inter-Resin has given, as
aforesaid, Bank of America the right of reimbursement from the issuing
bank, Bank of Ayudhya which, in turn, would then seek indemnification
from the buyer (the General Chemicals of Thailand). Since Bank of
Ayudhya disowned the letter of credit, however, Bank of America may
now turn to Inter-Resin for restitution.
The additional ground raised by the petitioner, i.e., that Inter-Resin sent
waste instead of its products, is really of no consequence. In the
operation of a letter of credit, the involved banks deal only with
documents and not on goods described in those documents. 34
Conclusions
Bank of America has acted merely as a notifying bank and did not
assume the responsibility of a confirming bank; and
Between the seller and the negotiating bank there is the usual
relationship existing between a drawer and purchaser of drafts. Unless
12