Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:54:30.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Braka v. Bancomer, S.N.C. 762 F.2d. 222

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 79 , Issue 4 , October 1985 , pp. 1054 - 1055
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bancomer’s New York agency was not authorized to accept deposits, but transmitted the funds to the Mexican office.

2 757 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1985), summarized in 79 AJIL 733 (1985).

3 762 F.2d 222, 224 (quoting Tabacalera Severiano Jorge, S.A. v. Standard Cigar Co., 392 F.2d 706, 715–16 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 393 U.S. 924 (1968)).

4 735 F.2d 645 (2d Cir. 1984), summarized in 79 AJIL 454 (1985).

5 See Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 696–706 (1976) (Opinion of White, J.).

6 See Texas Trading & Milling Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 647 F.2d 300, 316 n.38 (2d Cir. 1981), summarized in 75 AJIL 968 (1981), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1148 (1982); Hunt v. Mobil Oil Corp., 550 F.2d 68, 72-73 (2d Cir.), summarized in 71 AJIL 781 (1977), cert, denied, 434 U.S. 984(1977).