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

Case Citations [1] (July 2019 - April 2020)

handle is hein.ali/retsgy0590 and id is 1 raw text is: SURETYSHIP AND GUARANTY 3D CHAPTER 1. TRANSACTIONS GOVERNED BY LAW OF SURETYSHIP AND GUARANTY § 6. Rules Subject to Agreement of Parties C.A.7, 2019. Com. (a) quot. in disc. After entering into a settlement agreement with insolvent general contractor, bank brought a lawsuit against general contractor, seeking damages under the theory of quia timet based on allegations that, among other things, defendant breached an indemnity agreement between the parties. The district court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. This court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that plaintiff s equitable claims under the theory of quia timet were barred by the fact that plaintiff already obtained damages through mediation for defendant's breach of the indemnity agreement. The court cited Restatement Third of Suretyship & Guaranty § 6, Comment a, in explaining that the parties' indemnity agreement already provided plaintiff with certain rights and damages, and further equitable damages under the theory of quia timet would have been redundant. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Edward E. Gillen Company, 926 F.3d 318, 325. CHAPTER 2. FORMATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND INTERPRETATION OF THE SECONDARY OBLIGATION TOPIC 1. FORMATION OF THE SECONDARY OBLIGATION § 9. Consideration C.A.11, 2019. Com. (a) cit. in diss. op. Lender brought a lawsuit against husband, wife, and limited- liability companies owned by husband and wife, alleging that defendants breached the terms of the parties' loan agreements by failing to make timely payments. The district court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff s motion for summary judgment. This court affirmed and remanded, holding, inter alia, that the district court did not err in finding that wife did not have standing under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to counterclaim for discrimination, because she was a guarantor and not an applicant to the parties' loans. The dissent argued that, under Restatement Third of Suretyship and Guaranty § 9, Comment a, guarantors became applicants when they provided consideration in the form of a promise to pay, because the guaranty contracts would be unenforceable otherwise. Regions Bank v. Legal Outsource PA, 936 F.3d 1184, 1213. CHAPTER 3. INCIDENTS OF SURETYSHIP STATUS TOPIC 2. SECONDARY OBLIGOR'S RECOURSE AGAINST PRINCIPAL OBLIGOR TITLE A. DUTY OF PERFORMANCE § 21. Principal Obligor's Duty of Performance COPYRIGHT 02020 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved 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