Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 706 F.2d 193
Tags: Contracts, Material breach
tl;dr:
Plaintiff received loans from Defendant, but had an issue paying them back. Plaintiff agreed to pay the interest back by Nov. 15, but failed to do so. Defendant almost immediately called the loans, even after Plaintiff tried to tender the payment.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 1983 case Sahadi v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a contract dispute involving a shipping company and a bank. The case centered on an agreement to forbear, which is a creditor's agreement to delay or suspend enforcing a debt or obligation.
The shipping company, Great Lakes and European Lines, Inc., owned by Fred and Helen Sahadi, secured a $3 million loan from the defendant bank, which was personally guaranteed by the Sahadis. The bank later promised to increase the loan to $11 million but didn't due to a deteriorating relationship between the parties.
The shipping company threatened to sue the bank and withheld interest payments. In response, the bank threatened to call in the loan. After negotiations, both parties reached an agreement, but when the shipping company made the interest payment a day late, the bank refused it and called in the loan, leading to the company's bankruptcy and significant personal liability for the Sahadis.
The Sahadis sued the bank, but the district court sided with the bank. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed the decision and called for a trial because there was a genuine dispute about whether the late payment constituted a material breach of the agreement.
The case is significant because it highlights the concept and application of agreements to forbear in contract law. These agreements are enforceable contracts requiring good faith and fair dealing from both parties, and they don't allow for unreasonable termination without notice or cure.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The case involves a dispute over a loan agreement between Great Lakes and European Lines, Inc. (GLE) and Continental Illinois Bank. GLE claims that the Bank breached the agreement by calling the loan without notice, and there were factual disputes regarding the material breach and the Bank's duty of good faith. The court found that there was a genuine factual dispute regarding the material breach, and the case was remanded for trial. The negotiations resulted in two agreements, one of which released the Bank from any claims and collateralized the Sahadis' guarantee of the Bank's outstanding loan to GLE. The other agreement provided for the payment of interest and forbearance from demanding payment of the entire outstanding loan and accrued interest until December 31, 1977. The Bank could demand payment in full of the liabilities prior to December 31, 1977, if GLE failed to make payment of interest accrued on the liabilities through September 30, 1977, on or before November 15, 1977. The Bank sent a billing to GLE headquarters on November 9, 1977, reminding GLE of the interest due on November 15 and referring to the October 25, 1977 agreement, but the letter did not mention the Bank's intent to call the loan if payment did not arrive on the specified date. The Bank made no mention of its intent to call the loan when speaking with top GLE representatives on November 14 and 15. The Bank had routinely accepted late interest payments from GLE under the underlying loan that the agreement modified.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.