About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through April 2019)

handle is hein.ali/retsgy0589 and id is 1 raw text is: SURETYSHIP AND GUARANTY 3D CHAPTER 1. TRANSACTIONS GOVERNED BY LAW OF SURETYSHIP AND GUARANTY § 1. Scope; Transactions Giving Rise to Suretyship Status D.Hawaii, 2018. Subsec. (1)(a) quot. in case quot. in sup. In a dispute arising from contractor's default on its obligations to install fire-safety equipment for state, surety that paid claims to state, as obliged under certain performance bonds, sued contractor, alleging that contractor breached its obligations under an agreement in which it agreed to indemnify surety for claims made against the bonds; contractor counterclaimed, alleging that it had been discharged, completely or pro tanto, from its obligations under the agreement by surety's acts or omissions, which increased its risk of loss by decreasing its ability to bear the cost of performance. This court granted surety's motion to dismiss contractor's claim for discharge, holding that contractor was not entitled to rely on the defenses of impairment of suretyship or pro tanto discharge, because it was not a surety under the bonds within the meaning of Restatement Third of Suretyship and Guaranty § 1, but rather, the principal obligor. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Ohana Control Systems, Inc., 289 F.Supp.3d 1141, 1146. CHAPTER 2. FORMATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND INTERPRETATION OF THE SECONDARY OBLIGATION TOPIC 2. ENFORCEMENT OF THE SECONDARY OBLIGATION § 13. Assignment of Obligee's Rights Conn.App.2018. Cit. and quot. in sup.; com. (f) quot. in sup. Assignee of a creditor brought a lawsuit against guarantors of a debtor, alleging that guarantors were liable for debtor's default on a mortgage securing a construction loan; guarantors argued, inter alia, that assignee lacked standing to enforce the debt, because the guarantee that had been made between debtor and creditor, which limited guarantors' liability, had not been assigned to assignee. The trial court entered judgment for plaintiff. This court affirmed in part, holding that the guarantee was assigned to plaintiff when creditor assigned the mortgage to plaintiff. The court cited Restatement Third of Suretyship and Guaranty § 13 in explaining that an obligee who assigned its rights against an obligor to a third party also automatically assigned secondary obligations, such as a guarantee, because such secondary obligations only have value when adjunct to the primary obligation. Jenzack Partners, LLC v. Stoneridge Associates, LLC. 192 A.3d 455, 461,462, 463. TOPIC 3. INTERPRETATION OF THE SECONDARY OBLIGATION § 16. Continuing Guaranty COPYRIGHT 02019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved AgI Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most