Seigel v. Merrill Lynch Case Analysis

High school
Case Study
Law
Pages 2 (502 words)
Download 0
Merrill Lynch accidentally paid checks amounting to $143,000 to various casinos in Atlanta City, New Jersey, in spite of instructions from their client, Seigel, to stop payment against these checks. The payments were made to these casinos for the losses suffered by Seigel on account of gambling…

Introduction

As a matter of fact, Seigel was obliged to make these payments anyway. There was no reason for him to stop making these payments. It is also a fact that he had given instructions to Merrill Lynch to stop payment against the checks issued by him to the casinos against gambling chips. However, the court ruled that since Seigel had not suffered any actual loss and the checks were payments rightfully made in view of his gambling dues, Merrill Lynch could not be convicted for any wrong doing.
Prima facie, Merrill Lynch erred in not adhering to the instructions to stop payments against the checks. It was a mistake on the part of Merrill Lynch to pass the checks after having received instructions from their client, Seigel, to stop making payments against these checks. In fact, Merrill Lynch did stop payments against many checks issued to the casinos by Seigel. However, they did not fully adhere to instructions and cleared certain checks amounting to $143,000 issued by Seigel to these casinos.
The court's view that since Seigel abrogated his rights to these monies after losing them to the casinos, he could not seek legal reprieve even if Merrill Lynch had overlooked his instructions to stop payment against these checks appear proper and fair. ...
Download paper
Not exactly what you need?

Related papers

The Case Analysis Written Assignment for Stewart v Secretary of State for Scotland 1998 SLT 385
Appellant contends that the narrower interpretation of the word “inability” is “supported by earlier legislation inasmuch as it produced a comprehensive code for sheriffs principal who demitted or were removed from office because of physical or mental infirmity”. He further asserts that if the wider interpretation is to accrue “an anomalous result would be reached”. He clarified that…
Hewitt v Debus Case Note
The vendor issued a notice of termination, and the solicitors for Debus alleged misrepresentation. Hewitt sold the property to another buyer, Mr. Darren Gillham, with their agreement being “subject to and conditional upon” termination of the agreement with Debus. Debus treated Hewitt termination as repudiation and she terminated the agreement herself. Debus did not seek a similar remedy,…
Pugh v. Locke Case
On February 26, 1974, an inmate of G. K. Fountain Correctional Center filed a complaint concerning the state of inmates confined by the Alabama board of corrections or those who may be confined later (Robbins & Michael, 1977). The court found that those actions were maintained as class actions under Federal Rule 23(a) and (b) (2) (Gerald, 1978). Notably, the court investigated and found out that…
Routledge v McKay Case
The buyer went away for considering his options and returned on October 30th to finalise the purchase. The contract for the sale was drawn up in writing on October the 30th but it did not mention anything about the year of manufacturing. Moreover, the written agreement ended with the contractual term that paying thirty pounds meant the end of the transaction. The buyer later found out that the…
R v Adomako, Law case
The Court of Appeal discussed the tests on involuntary manslaughter when related with questions of gross negligence in dismissing the case and upholding a conviction. The court was faced with confirming that the violation of the duty of care resulted into the death of the victim. It was also important to find out whether the breach of the duty resulted to the death thus justifying a criminal…
Case Analysis: R v Chaouk [2013] VSC 48
This led to the decline by the Victoria legal aid to make a submission of the case after they were invited to do so by the court ‘R v Chaouk [2013] VSC 48’.The tasks as enumerated by the trial judge superseded was could easily be understood as provision of administrative assistance to the legal counsel acting in cahoots with the plaintiff. In his ruling the trial judge lay more emphasis on the…
Seigel v. Merrill Lynch Case Analysis
As a matter of fact, Seigel was obliged to make these payments anyway. There was no reason for him to stop making these payments. It is also a fact that he had given instructions to Merrill Lynch to stop payment against the checks issued by him to the casinos against gambling chips. However, the court ruled that since Seigel had not suffered any actual loss and the checks were payments rightfully…