Court Opinion

ID: 9670194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:16:31.830739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:02.951859
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
(on motion for reconsideration). The defendant-appellant, Babcock, in his motion for reconsideration, asks the court to rule on his argument that notice must be given of intention to make an extension of credit under a continuing guaranty. Babcock contends that notice must be given before each transaction, not merely after each extension of credit, as we have previously stated. The argument must be rejected. Notice of intent to accept under a continuing guaranty offer is required “when the offer indicates a willingness to guaranty only if the creditor signifies his intention to accept.” Dole, Notice Requirements of Guaranty Contracts, 62 Mich. L. Rev. 57, 61 (1963). The contract in the instant case not only fails to suggest that the guaranty offer is conditional upon notice of intent to accept; it expressly waives notice of “any present or future advancement or credit at any time . . . .”
In addition, footnote 2 of this opinion is amended to read:
Motion denied.