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

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

handle is hein.ali/retsgy0591 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 C.A.Fed.2019. Cit. in conc. op. After contractor appealed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' determination that contractor had defaulted on its contract with the Corps, contractor's surety filed a motion to intervene, alleging that the surety agreement assigned contractor's claims under the contract with the Corps to surety. The board of appeals denied surety's motion to intervene. This court affirmed, holding that surety lacked standing, because, under the federal rules of civil procedure, surety could not have initiated the complaint against the Corps on its own, because it lacked privity with the government. Citing Restatement of Security § 82 and Restatement Third of Suretyship & Guaranty § 1, the concurrence argued that surety was in privity with the government, because, under the surety agreement, surety undertook contractor's obligation to perform contractual duties and obligations in the event of default. Guarantee Company of North America, USA v. Ikhana, LLC, 941 F.3d 1140, 1147. § 2. Contract Creating the Secondary Obligation Ct.Int'l Trade, 2012. Subsec. (d) cit. in disc. Surety for single-entry bonds brought, among other things, claims for fraudulent misrepresentation against importer and the United States, alleging, inter alia, that bonds securing payment for importer's illegal-dumping duties were voidable, because U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) failed to inform plaintiff that importer had been investigated by Customs for illegally importing foreign produce. On remand, this court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, holding, inter alia, that plaintiff failed to state a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. The court rejected Customs' assertion relying on Restatement Third of Suretyship and Guaranty § 2(d) that it did not have an opportunity to disclose the information to plaintiff because the bonds were executed without its involvement, explaining that the fact that Customs' approval of the bonds was necessary for the merchandise to enter the United States, and thus for the creation of the bonds, meant that Customs could have had the opportunity to disclose. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. U.S., 36 C.I.T. 1157, 1160. CHAPTER 2. FORMATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND INTERPRETATION OF THE SECONDARY OBLIGATION TOPIC 1. FORMATION OF THE SECONDARY OBLIGATION § 8. When Notification of Acceptance of the Secondary Obligor's Offer Is Necessary for Creation of the Secondary Obligation Ct.Int'l Trade, 2012. Com. (a) quot. in sup. Surety for single-entry bonds brought, among other things, claims for fraudulent misrepresentation against importer and the United States, alleging, inter alia, that bonds securing payment for importer's illegal-dumping duties were voidable, because U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) failed to inform plaintiff that importer had been investigated by Customs COPYRIGHT ©2020 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