Session 3 â€“ Case Analysis
Seigel v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
400 UCC Rep. 2nd 810 (Ct. App. D. C. 2000)
Seigel traveled to Atlantic City, New Jersey to gamble. While there, he wrote several checks to various casinos, and, in exchange, received gambling chips with which to wager. The checks were drawn on Seigelâ€™s cash management account with defendant/appellee, which was established through Merrill Lynchâ€™s District of Columbia offices and where there had been sufficient funds in the account to cover all the checks. Seigel gambled all the chips he had received for the checks. When Seigel returned to Maryland, he talked what ...view middle of the document...
The test is what would have been done by that familiar legal creature, the reasonable man. In the law of torts, he has traditionally been known as the man on the Clapham omnibus; in the law of trusts he is the ordinary prudent man of business. The particular trustee must act as this man would act in the same circumstances. If this standard is not satisfied, and loss ensues, then the trustee is in breach of trust and responsible."
Seigel also filed a motion for summary judgment, along with an attached affidavit. A motion â€“ summary is, â€œa request for a decision by a court of the matters submitted to it, based upon legal arguments only, where no material facts are in dispute.â€ A motion for summary judgment can be granted to resolve disputes involving legal interpretation, but not disputes regarding material facts.Â Summary judgment, generally, is a pre-trial remedy sought where, based upon facts not in dispute, and an application of the law to those facts, a party is entitled to a judgment on a claim.Â The judge cannot decide disputed facts in a summary judgment...