Opinion ID: 678497
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Date of Demand

Text: 74 Amoco also argues that because BNY did not demand immediate possession of the platinum until the date it filed its complaint, the district court erred in calculating damages based on the price of platinum on February 15, 1990, instead of March 1990 when, Amoco argues, BNY first clearly demanded the platinum. 75 The New York Court of Appeals has written that the loss is to be measured as of the time of the conversion. Procter & Gamble, 16 N.Y.2d at 352, 266 N.Y.S.2d at 791, 213 N.E.2d at 877. The date of conversion is the date at which demand was made and refused. The district court found that demand for the platinum was first made on February 15, 1990. Letter from Barbara A. Hyland, BNY, to E.A. Sloss, Amoco of 2/15/90, reprinted as Appendix Exhibit D. That letter stated: 76 As discussed this morning, we request that you transfer the following material which you are currently holding for the account or order of Drexel Burnham Lambert Trading Corporation to the account of The Bank of New York.... 77 The letter then proceeds to identify the specific holding certificates under which BNY claimed the platinum. Attached to the letter were copies of the front and back of each of the holding certificates. Amoco argues that it was confused by this letter because its final paragraph stated: 78 Please send the holding certificates which are now to the order of The Bank of New York directly to my attention under telefax advice. 79 Although this paragraph is puzzling--because BNY had the holding certificates and Amoco did not--the district court determined that the letter constituted a demand for the platinum. We find that taken as a whole the letter of February 15, 1990 constituted a demand for delivery of the platinum. Hence, the district court properly calculated damages with reference to the value of the platinum on February 15, 1990. 80