Rheinberg Kellerei Gmbh v. Brooksfield National Bank Of Commerce Bank

901 F.2d 481 (1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In January of 1986, J & J Wine, ordered a shipment of wine from P, through an importer, Frank Sutton & Co. Payment was to be made through an international letter of collection handled by Edekabank in Germany and D in the United States. On March 27, D received the letter of collection, bill of lading and invoices from Edeka. Payment was due 'on arrival of goods in Houston harbor,' and called for D to notify Sutton 'in case of any difficulty of lack payment.' The invoices noted an estimated time of arrival: April 2, 1986. D then presented the documents to J & J Wine on March 27. J & J Wine did not pay the amount due and asked D to hold the letter for a time while J & J Wine worked to raise the money for payment. D did not notify Edeka or Sutton. D did nothing further until early May when Sutton informed them that the wine was still at the Houston port and D cabled Edeka for further instructions. The wine had arrived in Houston on March 31, but D did not receive notice of that. The wine sat, exposed, at Houston harbor in metal containers until it had deteriorated completely. U.S. Customs agents eventually sold it at auction. J & J Wine subsequently went out of business, and P was never paid for the wine. P sued D alleging that D had negligently failed to inform it of J & J Wine's failure to pay and that because of that negligence, the wine had spoiled at Houston harbor. The district court entered a take-nothing judgment for D. It held that payment was not due until the wine's arrival, and D had no notice of that arrival and no duty to inquire further. D had no knowledge that J & J Wine was in breach of the payment terms. P appealed. D presented the letter of collection and the other documents to J & J Wine for payment on March 27, 1986, before the wine had arrived and before the payment was due. P argues that once D presented the documents, it had a duty to inform Edeka of any problem in collecting J & J Wine's payment.