Court Opinion

ID: 9478773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:57:39.623543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:36.629163
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge, specially
concurring:
I write separately to note an alternative basis for our holding that the bank’s damages are not limited to the cost of reconstructing the cash letter. Pony Express’ argument concerning limitations on its liability is primarily based on the existence of an oral contract. A review of the discovery conducted in this case reveals the following:
Plaintiff’s Request to Admit No. 5.
Admit that The Hinesville Bank has not entered into any oral agreement with Defendant which would limit Defendant’s duty or liability with respect to the cash letter which was picked up by Defendant’s agent (J. Hook) on September 29, 1986.
RESPONSE: Defendant does not comprehend the specific meaning of Request No. 5. Defendant relies on the terms and conditions of its Tariff as agreed to by Plaintiff when Plaintiff prepared the said Waybill No. 3054143; and other than that, Defendant is not aware of any oral agreement that would in any way change, alter or amend the Tariff.
(emphasis added). I would hold that Pony Express is foreclosed from arguing that any oral agreement limited its liability. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b) (“Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established”); 999 v. C.I.T. Corp., 776 F.2d 866, 869-70 (9th Cir.1985) (“Evidence inconsistent with a Rule 36 admission is properly excluded.”).