Court Opinion

ID: 9725415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:46:13.353381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:15.016071
License: Public Domain

ROTH, P. J.
I concur. I think it pertinent, however, to point out that any logical analysis of the contract at bench shows that it was the clear intent of the husband plaintiff and it was so understood by defendants that defendants deny monetary credit to plaintiff’s wife and specifically that they refrain from cashing her checks.
*802There can be no argument that public policy does not frown upon a promise made for a consideration not to cash the check of or extend credit to one who has a history of default at the instance of another who feels a moral obligation to cure such default. At bench, defendants knew plaintiff paid the spurious checks only because his wife was involved and they knew and/or should have known that the relationship between them was under strain because of wife’s gambling and would continue to be if the wife’s compulsive gambling habit were not controlled. Realistically analyzed, the admitted contract shows that plaintiff paid the defaulted checks of his wife for the primary purpose of preventing the extension of credit in any form to his compulsively gambling wife. We know of no legal principle which obligates owners of a business operated for those who gamble, albeit legally, to extend credit or cash the checks of their customers.
A petition for a rehearing was denied November 25, 1980, and respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 28, 1981.