Court Opinion

ID: 9544322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:54:41.689883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:44.531016
License: Public Domain

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result because the lack of a signature on the certificate of deposit, a non-negotiable instrument, was totally irrelevant to the loss sustained by Appellee. I believe that the majority has adequately disposed of the entire dispute in its explanation appearing in footnote 9, page 303, where the majority affirms the “ ... well standing principle that a loss is not recoverable on the ground of contract breach where there is no causal relationship be*129tween the breach and the loss.” (Citations omitted.) I view the balance of the analysis as qua obiter dictum.
HUTCHINSON, J., joins in this concurring opinion.