Traco Inc V Arrow Glass

Case Brief No. 1
Bickham v. Washington Bank & Trust Co, 515 So.2d 457 (La.App. 1987)
 Summary Statement of Essential Facts
On January 23, 1974, Bickham and Washington Bank & Trust Co.,signed and agreement where the Bank would loan Bickham and his corporation a maximum of $ 500,000.00 at an interest of 7.5%. Out of the 43 loan made by the Bank 23 of them where made with interestrates varying between 8.76% and 14%. Only one loan remains unpaid at the time of this suit was file for the amount of $42,499.99 at 7.5% interest. Plaintiff was awarded $840.50 plus interest and costbut rejected all other demands.
 Issues
The elementary contract law dictates that bilateral contracts can be altered only with the consent of both parties. The unilateral action by the Bank wasunprofessional and legally wrong.
The law expressed in New Orleans &N.E.R. CO. v Louisiana Const. & Imp Co. supra, a party can recover his voluntary payments merely because he paid under protest. Court’s Holding
Although the Court finds the unilateral action by the Bank unprofessional an legally wrong it is bounded by the law expressed in New Orleans &N.E.R. CO. v Louisiana Const. &Imp Co. supra, a party can recover his voluntary payments merely because he paid under protest.
 Rule(s) of Law Applied to the Case
New Orleans & N,E,R Co. vs Louisiana Construction & ImpCo. 33So.51(1902) and the New Orleans & NER Co. supra. The Louisiana Law does not permit a party to recover his voluntary payment merely because he paid under protest,
 Court’s Reasoning
TheCourt deem this plain case, It is an established rule of the law that if a party, while a full knowledge of the facts, voluntary pays a demand unjustly made on him and attempted to be enforced by legalproceedings, he cannot recover back the money, as paid by compulsion, unless there be fraud in the party enforcing the claim and a knowledge that the claim is unjust. I Beck ham had the opportunity...