Summary
In Brill v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 14 A.D.2d 852, 220 N YS.2d 903 (1st Dep't 1961). two dissenting judges argued that a check issued by a bank in Cuba for a deposit in pesos was, if payable in United States currency, an exchange contract.
Summary of this case from Libra Bank Ltd. v. Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, S.A.Opinion
November 14, 1961
Order, entered on July 3, 1961, insofar as it granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, modified on the law to the extent of denying summary judgment, without costs, and the judgment entered pursuant to said order on July 7, 1961 is vacated. There are triable issues presented which should be determined by trial and not by affidavits. At the least, an issue is posed as to the illegality of the transaction as being in contravention of the exchange regulations of Cuba, and thus in violation of the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund (Bretton Woods Agreement Act, U.S. Code, tit. 26, § 286). Moreover, it cannot be concluded from the papers — as Special Term did — that the check was not payable in Cuban currency alone, but in dollars as well. Nor is there any factual basis for the assumption by Special Term that the peso and dollar were on a parity basis. If the check was payable in pesos only, then plaintiff would only be entitled to recover a sum in dollars equivalent to the rate of exchange of pesos prevailing at the date of the breach of contract. ( Hoppe v. Russo-Asiatic Bank, 235 N.Y. 37.) The record is barren of any averments as to the exchange value of the Cuban peso at the appropriate date. While it is not intended to limit the triable issues to the afore-mentioned ones, their presence in this case alone required the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Concur — Breitel, Rabin and Valente, JJ.;
We concur with the result reached by the majority insofar as it finds the granting of summary judgment to the plaintiff to be improper, but we go further and maintain that judgment should have been granted to the defendant. In so doing we do not reach the question of whether the check was payable in pesos or in dollars. Assuming that it was payable, as plaintiff maintains, in dollars, it is clearly an exchange contract. The check was issued in return for a deposit with the defendant bank in Cuba of pesos. It naturally followed that, if it were payable in dollars, it represented a purchase of the equivalent amount of dollars for Cuban pesos. This is what an exchange contract is. By the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund ( U.S. Code, tit. 22, § 286), all such contracts are subject to the exchange control regulations of the government of the country in which the transaction was made, and enforcible in the territories of all member governments. By the exchange regulations of Cuba, the removal of the check from Cuba was a violation of its monetary regulations and, hence, the transaction, if sought to be enforced here, would be illegal. This would necessitate a holding that the only place where legal performance was possible would be in Havana. Presentation of the check to the defendant in Havana could not result in payment because of the expropriation of the defendant's funds in its Havana branch. As the check for that reason is only payable in Havana the Banking Law (§ 138, subd. 1) provides that where a local bank has a branch in a foreign country it is only liable for the performance of contracts to be performed at such branch, if a local bank of the foreign country would be so liable. By "laws" are included decrees and regulations of a dominant authority in the foreign country. The local bank in the foreign country would be excused from performance by the confiscation order of the Cuban government, which transferred the liability to the National Bank of Cuba. Plaintiff would be limited to seeking redress at that source and could not prevail against this defendant. Hence, summary judgment should have been ordered in its favor.