Lectrodryer

Lectrodryer v. SeoulBank

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 30·2000 Daily Journal DAR 645·77 Cal. App. 4th 723·91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 881·40 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 827
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 18, 2000B125737California1,842 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boren, J.

Lectrodryer sued SeoulBank for unjust enrichment arising from the bank’s issuance of a letter of credit. SeoulBank appeals following a jury verdict against it awarding $493,000. Lectrodryer cross-appeals, alleging demurrers were improperly sustained as to causes of action for fraud and intentional interference with contractual relations. We affirm.

Facts

Lectrodryer, a small Kentucky company, manufactured and delivered for JDP, a California exporter of industrial equipment, a molecular sieve dryer used in. refining oil into gasoline. Pursuant to a 1994 purchase order, the price of the sieve dryer was $493,000, payable by an irrevocable letter of credit. Prior to delivery, JDP arranged to resell the sieve dryer to Dae Ahn, a South Korean oil refinery. The resale price was $601,701, for a profit to JDP of approximately $108,000.

JDP was one of SeoulBank’s largest customers and was in serious financial difficulty. JDP wrote three checks totaling approximately $494,000 to SeoulBank to obtain a letter of credit from the bank to pay off Lectrodryer. SeoulBank issued the letter of credit. Thereafter, two of JDP’s checks totaling more than $492,000 bounced. But after receiving…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.