Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit • 1982

Evra Corp. v. Swiss Bank Corp.

673 F.2d 951 | 1982 A.M.C. 2665

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a negligent bank is not liable for extraordinary consequential losses from a failed wire transfer unless it had specific notice of the special risk, particularly where the sender could have readily protected itself against the loss.

Background

Hyman-Michaels, a Chicago scrap-metal company, chartered the Pandora to carry steel scrap to Brazil. The charter required semi-monthly hire payments in advance to the shipowner’s Geneva account and permitted cancellation for late payment. Because the charter rate was fixed when market rates were low, the charter became highly profitable to Hyman-Michaels as rates rose.

After an earlier late payment dispute, Hyman-Michaels knew the shipowner was eager to cancel the charter and that timely payment mattered. On April 25, 1973, Hyman-Michaels asked Continental Illinois National Bank to wire $27,000 through Continental’s London office and its Geneva correspondent, Swiss Bank, to the owner’s account. When Swiss Bank’s cable-department telex line was busy, Continental sent the instruction to a Swiss Bank foreign-exchange telex machine. The machine acknowledged receipt, but Swiss Bank never acted on the instruction. The message was apparently lost or mishandled.

On April 27, the shipowner declared the charter canceled for nonpayment. Although Hyman-Michaels told Continental to continue trying to make the payment, it did not send a duplicate wire directly to the Banque de Paris or use another rapid means of payment. Swiss Bank finally received a retransmitted instruction on May 1 and attempted payment the next day, but the shipowner refused it. Arbitrators held that Hyman-Michaels had been blameless until it learned of the failed payment on April 27, but had then acted imprudently by failing to take all available steps to cure the default. They therefore upheld cancellation.

Hyman-Michaels sued Swiss Bank for arbitration expenses and approximately $2.1 million in lost profits from losing the favorable charter and subcharter arrangement. Swiss Bank impleaded Continental for indemnity, and Hyman-Michaels counterclaimed against Continental for negligence and breach of contract. After a bench trial, the district court applied Illinois law, found Swiss Bank negligent, and awarded Hyman-Michaels consequential damages. It rejected Swiss Bank’s indemnity claim and dismissed Hyman-Michaels’ claim against Continental. Swiss Bank and Hyman-Michaels appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Swiss or Illinois law governed Hyman-Michaels’s claim against Swiss Bank.

Holding

The court did not decide the choice-of-law question because Hyman-Michaels could not recover even under Illinois law, which was more favorable to its position than Swiss law.

Reasoning

The parties agreed that Swiss law would bar recovery because Swiss Bank had no contract or privity relationship with Hyman-Michaels. Illinois law did not impose the same privity barrier. But a genuine conflict mattered only if Illinois law afforded Hyman-Michaels a viable claim.

Because the court concluded that Illinois law did not permit recovery of the claimed consequential damages, it avoided predicting whether Illinois choice-of-law principles would select Illinois or Swiss law. In either event, Swiss Bank would not be liable.

Issue #2

Whether Swiss Bank was liable for Hyman-Michaels’s lost profits and arbitration expenses caused by the failed wire transfer.

Holding

No. Even assuming Swiss Bank negligently mishandled the transfer instruction, it was not liable for consequential damages because it lacked notice of the exceptional risk and Hyman-Michaels could have avoided the loss through reasonable precautions.

Reasoning

The claimed losses were consequential rather than direct damages. Hyman-Michaels did not lose the $27,000 itself, interest on the funds, or a transfer fee. Instead, it sought losses caused by the business disruption that followed the missed payment: arbitration costs and profits lost when the shipowner canceled the favorable charter.

The court assumed that Uniform Commercial Code Article 4 did not govern electronic fund transfers, following the Second Circuit’s approach in Delbrueck. It therefore applied common-law principles, especially Hadley v. Baxendale, rather than deciding whether Article 4’s bad-faith limitation on consequential damages applied.

Under Hadley, consequential damages are recoverable only when the defendant had notice of the special circumstances making those losses a probable result of breach or negligence. Illinois cases applied that rule even where a transmission company negligently mishandled a money order. General awareness that delayed payments can cause harm is not enough.

Swiss Bank knew that the transfer concerned payment for the hire of a vessel named Pandora, but it did not know the payment deadline, the favorable terms of the charter, the shipowner’s desire to escape the deal, or Hyman-Michaels’s particular vulnerability to another late payment. It therefore had no basis to infer that losing a $27,000 payment instruction could expose it to more than $2 million in losses.

The notice rule also serves an economic function: it places extraordinary losses on the party best positioned to prevent or insure against them unless that party specifically shifts the risk by contract. Swiss Bank could not sensibly calibrate its staffing, safeguards, or insurance to risks it could not measure and that arose from a business relationship to which it was not a party.

Hyman-Michaels, by contrast, knew exactly how valuable and fragile its charter was. It had already experienced one threatened cancellation, waited until arguably the last possible day to initiate an international transfer, and, once it learned the payment had failed, did not immediately send a duplicate wire or use a banker’s check, courier, or other rapid method to get funds to Geneva.

The court treated Hyman-Michaels’s conduct as analogous to the avoidable-consequences doctrine. Its earlier decision to operate with no margin for error resembled failing to take a precaution before an accident, while its failure to make a duplicate payment after learning of the problem resembled unreasonably allowing an injury to worsen. Its own imprudence thus independently reinforced the conclusion that Swiss Bank should not bear the extraordinary losses.

The Illinois telegraph cases relied on by Hyman-Michaels did not compel a different result. In those cases, the transmission companies knew the precise type of loss their errors would cause, and the senders had not failed to protect themselves. Here, Swiss Bank had much less information, while Hyman-Michaels failed to take readily available steps to prevent the cancellation.

Issue #3

Whether the federal court had ancillary jurisdiction over Hyman-Michaels’s counterclaim against Continental, even though both were Illinois citizens.

Holding

Yes. The counterclaim was within ancillary jurisdiction because it was a compulsory counterclaim to Continental’s transaction-related claim against Hyman-Michaels.

Reasoning

Continental’s claim against Hyman-Michaels arose from the same transaction as the original suit and was properly within the court’s ancillary jurisdiction. Hyman-Michaels’s claim against Continental responded to that claim and was compulsory, so it did not require an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

This result did not conflict with Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger. Hyman-Michaels had not initially used federal procedure to sue a nondiverse party that it could not have sued in diversity. Rather, Continental had invoked the federal court’s ancillary jurisdiction against Hyman-Michaels, and Hyman-Michaels could answer with its compulsory counterclaim.

Issue #4

Whether Continental breached a contractual duty to Hyman-Michaels or acted negligently in transmitting and following up on the payment instruction.

Holding

No. Continental performed the limited tasks it undertook and exercised reasonable care.

Reasoning

On April 25, Continental undertook to transmit a telex instruction to Swiss Bank, and it did so. Its operator had previously used Swiss Bank’s foreign-exchange telex machine for the same purpose without incident and had no reason to anticipate that the message would be lost or mishandled.

After April 27, Hyman-Michaels instructed Continental to tell its correspondent to persist in attempting payment. Continental gave Swiss Bank that instruction and reasonably assisted in the unsuccessful effort to locate the missing telex. The evidence did not establish either a broader contractual commitment or negligent performance by Continental.