concluding no provision of the UFA restricts the immunity from liability to suits based on negligence or precludes its applicability to suits based on a contract theory
How later courts described this case
- concluding no provision of the UFA restricts the immunity from liability to suits based on negligence or precludes its applicability to suits based on a contract theory
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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 *129 tween 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.