Facts - Plaintiff sold defendant’s son some cows. The defendant’s son had his mother (defendant) pay for the cows but when she found out her son wouldn’t be paying his mother back, she put a stop payment on the check. The bank didn’t honor the check and the plaintiff sued the defendant for the amount of the check claiming he was a holder in due course.
Issue - Whether Kane is a holder in due course
Rationale - Because the plaintiff (1) took the check for value, (2) took it in good faith, and (3) had no knowledge that the check would be cancelled, he satisfied all three requirements to show he was a holder in due course
Conclusion - If you satisfy the 3 requirements then you’re a holder in due course
No comments:
Post a Comment