Opinion ID: 741530
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New circumstances arising to justify demand for assurances

Text: 8 Even if Wien is correct in its assertion that a new contract was formed on August 7, the Uniform Commercial Code Comment 3 following Cal.Com.Code § 2609 specifically provides that the grounds for insecurity need not arise from or be directly related to the contract in question. 3 Additionally, the Comment states that repeated delinquencies must be viewed as cumulative. Id. at Comment 4. Therefore, even if what Wien claims were true (i.e., that the August 7 modification constituted an entirely new contract), it does not follow that the grounds for USL's insecurity can only be based upon events that occurred after August 7 and that were connected with that new contract. 9 Moreover, even if Wien were correct in its claim that a new event must have occurred after August 7 sufficient to justify USL's insecurity, Wien's actions following the August 7 contract modification were sufficient to give rise to insecurity on the part of USL. After August 7, Wien did not notify USL of its intent to close by August 20, as USL had requested. After USL wrote to Wien and asked it to notify USL by August 23 as to the closing date, Wien failed to make such notification. Instead, Wien promised to respond to USL on August 26, because Wien would have needed financial information at that time. Wien did not reply to USL on August 26. These facts could have caused reasonable insecurity on the part of USL.