Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. v. Citibank

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a bank had sole discretion under Article 4A to cancel a payment order, even if it previously indicated that it would put a hold on a beneficiary’s account so they could not access the fraudulent payment
• under Article 4-A, receiving bank has no obligation to agree to return funds once it has accepted payment order
• “no allegation [beneficiary bank] was served with any creditor process, and therefore [bank] was entitled to make the funds available to [beneficiary]”
• “A revocation is a clear manifestation of an intent not to perform, and once communicated to the offeree, terminates the offeree’s power to accept the offer.”
• “A revocation is a clear manifestation of an intent not to perform, and once communicated to the offeree, terminates the offeree’s power to accept the offer.”) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 42 (1981
• “[The plaintiff] does not state a claim because all of the acts alleged to constitute a conversion were specifically authorized under applicable provisions of the U.C.C. and were not wrongful, improper, or in contravention of [the defendant’s] rights.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).