National Homes Corp. v. Worcester County National Bank

372 N.E.2d 1314, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 852
Massachusetts Appeals Court·Decided March 2, 1978·Published

Opinion

It is not necessary to decide whether either of the defendant’s letters to the plaintiff of April 11,1973, constituted a letter of credit within the scope of G. L. c. 106, § 5-102, or as defined in G. L. c. 106, § 5-103. See generally Moss v. Old Colony Trust Co., 246 Mass. 139, 151-152 (1923). On the subsidiary facts found by the master, the plaintiff was entitled to recover by reason of its full performance (and thus its acceptance) of the offer for a unilateral contract (Northampton Inst. for Sav. v. Putnam, 313 Mass. 1, 7 [1943]) set out in the second sentence of the second paragraph of both letters. Lent v. Padelford, 10 Mass. 230, 237-238 (1813). Train v. Gold, 5 Pick. 380, 384-385 (1828). Paige v. Parker, 8 Gray 211, 213 (1857). Bishop v. Eaton, 161 Mass. 496, 499-500 (1894).

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

National Homes Corp. v. Worcester County National Bank, 372 N.E.2d 1314, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 852 (Mass. Ct. App. 1978).

372 N.E.2d 1314 (National Homes Corp. v. Worcester County National Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lent v. Padelford
10 Mass. 230 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1813)
Bishop v. Eaton
37 N.E. 665 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)
Moss v. Old Colony Trust Co.
246 Mass. 139 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Northampton Institution for Savings v. Putnam
45 N.E.2d 936 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)