The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it had made a false representation of fact when calling on a letter of credit.
The trial judge found the appellant called the letter of credit to replace it with cash as a security deposit, rather than for arrears owing.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding was unreasonable and contrary to the evidence, which established the respondent bank knew the letter of credit was obtained to satisfy a security deposit requirement.
The action was dismissed.
