B A SID $16,000 SID Citibank A SID JL B A A JL $16,000 B B Citibank 1 Citibank SID $16,000 SID SID Citibank unauthorized transfer consumer fraud SID $

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "B A SID $16,000 SID Citibank A SID JL B A A JL $16,000 B B Citibank 1 Citibank SID $16,000 SID SID Citibank unauthorized transfer consumer fraud SID $"

つかさそめや
5 years ago
Views:

1 -1-7 / A the doctrine of promissory estoppel B C 3 D SID A Citibank 5 $16,000 2 B A B B C B C SID

2 B A SID $16,000 SID Citibank A SID JL B A A JL $16,000 B B Citibank 1 Citibank SID $16,000 SID SID Citibank unauthorized transfer consumer fraud SID $32,900 Citibank 4 UCC 4A

3 identity authorization security procedure A B Citibank A UCC 4A-201 UCC SID Citibank B A B isolated misstatement unambiguous promise relied on expected and foreseeable detriment -3-

4 -4- B A B A B A JL B SID $16,000 SID SID $16,000 SID

5 -5- / Amway All-Tech Amway 1988 All-Tech All-Tech Amway 1992 All-Tech Amway Amway Amway 50 $750 Amway ITI ITI All-Tech

6 -6- Amway All-Tech economic loss doctrine strict products liability privity Implied Warranty: Fitness for Particular Purpose

7 -7- disappointed economic expectations judicially created 1989 warranty privity 10 privity remote commercial purchaser

8 law of warranty

9 -9- real cost "commercial loss" doctrine All-Tech parol evidence rule four corners rule the statute of frauds

10 -10- All-Tech All-Tech Amway Asahi Metal Ind. v. Super. Ct. of Cal. Solano Cty., 480 U.S

11 JB BC $100,000 BC JB BC 3 19% BC JB BC MB BC BC JB BC JB BC JB MB limited liability company partnership members MB JB diversity suit citizenship $135,000

12 -12- $117,000 $1,000 $17,000 reliance judgment notwithstanding the verdict directed verdict judgment as a matter of law 10 That was good enough; captions do not control. captions BC JB costly change in position

13 -13- JB JB BC $100,000 JB BC BC cost

14 -14- All-Tech contractual undertaking definite clear and definite sine qua non Tell-Tech Amway Amway Amway warranty Learned Hand, C.J. 2 Amway

15 -15-7 All-Tech

16 -16- detrimental reliance 9 6 All-Tech a second bite at the apple 9 Nrris C.J. 1984

17 "apple" "cause of dissension" P.O.D. C.O.D. "The apples on the other side of the wall are the sweetest" Skyline Intern. Development v. Citibank, 706 N.E.2d 942 Ill. App. 1 Dist ILCS 5/4A-202 West 1994 Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. West 1996 Quake Construction, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 565 N.E.2d 990 Ill breach of contract detrimental reliance waiver of condition precedent impossibility of contract 4 Letter of Intent 2-17-

18 Letter of Intent Banque Worms v. Bank America International, 570 N.E.2d 189 N.Y Security Pacific Spedley Securities BankAmerica International Natwest USA $1,974, BankAmerica Banque Worms Spedley Banque Worms Security Pacific Banque Worms Spedley BankAmerica Security Pacific Banque Worms Security Pacific the "mistake of fact" doctrine detrimental reliance Banque Worms the "discharge for value" rule 14[1] All-Tech Telecom, Inc. v. Amway Corp., 174 F.3d 862 7th Cir Daanen & Janssen, Inc. v. Cedarapids, Inc., 573 N.W.2d 842 Wis $400,

19 privity 7 Note, Economic Loss in Products Liability Jurisprudence, 66 Colum. L. Rev. 917, Comment, Manufacturers' Liability to Remote Purchasers for "Economic Loss" Damages -- Tort or Contract?, 114 U. Pa. L. Rev. 539, Sunnyslope Grading, Inc. v. Miller, 437 N.W.2d 213 Wis solely economic losses Northridge Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 472 N.W.2d 179 Wis

20 asbestos Cooper Power Systems v. Union Carbide, 123 F.3d 675 7th Cir ; Midwest Knitting Mills, Inc. v. United States, 950 F.2d 1295, th Cir ; Miller v U.S. Steel Corp., 902 F.2d 573, th Cir ; Midwest Helicopters Airways, Inc. v. Sicorsky Aircraft, 849 F.Supp. 666, 671 E.D. Wis. 1994, aff'd 42 F.3d th Cir Hap's Aerial Enterprises, Inc. v. General Aviation Corp., 496 N.W.2d 680 Ct. App. Wis ; Tony Spychalla Farms, Inc. v. Hopkins Agric. Chem. Co., 444 N.W.2d 743 Ct. App. Wis East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S ,

21 Miller v. U.S. Steel Corp., 902 F.2d 573 7th Cir U.S. U.S. 80% the tail will not be allowed to wag the dog Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 133 N.W.2d 267 Wis Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729 7th Cir State Bank of Standish v. Curry, 500 N.W.2d 104 Mich

22 1975 C S C S C 1986 C S S C 2 S C the sine qua non of the theory of promissory estoppel is that the promise be clear and definite Metropolitan Coal Co. v. Howard, 155 F.2d 780 2d Cir ,800/1,900 1,

23 Vidimos, Inc. v. Laser Lab Ltd., 99 F.3d 217 7th Cir VI LL LL LL WL LL WL LL WL WL WL WL WM LL WL VI WL VI LLWL LL WL WL LLWL 3 VI LL $1,000,000 LL WLWM 7 LL WL VI -23-

24 LL WL WL VI WL VI WL LL LL WL WL WM WM WL LL VI VI assumed duty theory VI WL WL WM VI 1 Walker v. KFC Corporation, 728 F.2d th Cir KFC KFC ZSD WW WW ZSD ZSD WW KFC KFC ZSD WW KFC 9-24-

25 Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation District, 449 P.2d 462 Cal Signal Hill Aviation Co. v. Stroppe, 158 Cal.Rptr General Aviation, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 915 F.2d th Cir CS GN 1984 CS GN GN GN GN CS GN GN 6 GN CS GN 9 Prentice v. UDC Advisory Services, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 146 Ill. App. 1 Dist

26 1 dismiss with prejudice Walker v. KFC Corporation, 728 F.2d 1215, th Cir "Promissory estoppel is not a doctrine designed to give a party to a negotiated commercial bargain a second bite at the apple in the event it fails to prove a breach of contract." Copyright 2006 SEIJI ANDO All Rights Reserved -26-

or in any way connected with the item of sale, its operation, use, or misuse, including all such actions, claims, or demands based in whole or in part

-1- battle of forms The purchaser agrees to indemnify and hold the seller harmless from all actions, claims or demands arising out of or in any way connected with the item of sale, its operation, use,