Discussion Module 4
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern New Hampshire University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
307
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by BaronNeutron3360
Hi Professor and fellow classmates,
In order for Mr. Kane to be a holder in due course, he must meet the following requirements
stated in the UCC Section: 302:
(1) The party must be a holder of a complete and authentic negotiable instrument.
(2) The holder must take the instrument for value.
(3) The holder must take the instrument in good faith.
(4) The holder must take the instrument without notice of defects.
Mr. Kane has met all the requirements of due course because he accepted a check (instrument)
from Mrs. Knoll. Mrs. Knoll was paying a debt for her son Gerald, who purchased cattle from
Mr. Kane. Mr. Kane accepted the check in good faith and without any notice of defects
(Kubasek et al., 2020).
The rules of law play into the court's reasoning by establishing that Mr. Kane did meet all the
requirements for a holder in due course. Also, the court reasoned that a person could pay off
someone else's debt. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, the court should rule in favor of Mr.
Kane. Moreover, ambiguities are present in these rules of law because "in good faith" can have
many interpretations, and the burden of proof is ambiguous.
The ethical value guided in this conclusion was that Mr. Kane sold the cows to Gerald and
accepted payment from Mrs. Kroll to pay off Gerald's debt. Mr. Kane wasn't aware that Gerald
couldn't pay his mother (Kroll) back for his debt. Furthermore, Mr. Kane wasn't knowledgeable
that Mrs. Kroll would stop payment on the check. Therefore, the court saw that Gerald made a
deal with Mr. Kane; ethically, the judge would have to rule in Mr. Kane's favor.
Regards,
******
Reference
Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Dhooge, L. J., Herron, D. J., & Barkacs, L. L.
(2020).
Dynamic Business Law
(5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Hi ****,
I agree with your understanding regarding Kane being a holder in due course when the transaction for
the $6,100 in exchange for the cattle was made. Kane took the check for value in good faith and without
notice of any dishonor. In the case presented to us, it is not stated that any sales document was
presented, but it could have prevented a headache for Kane. Indeed, there was a document stating that
Kane exchanged the cattle for a check for $6,100 written by Grace, and regardless of whether Kroll paid
his mother or not, in this case, there would have been little to do against a written agreement.
Regards,
****
Hi
I agree that Kane was the holder in due course, as the information presented proved he met the three
requirements: for value, in good faith, without knowing of it being dishonored. The issue is not so much
whether Kane was a holder in due course, as we agree that he was, but that Kroll didn't pay his mama
the agreed-upon amount in exchange for her writing the check for the transaction for Kroll to get the
cattle. Once Kroll told Grace he was unable to pay her back, she stopped payment on the check, even
though the transaction had already been completed (my assumption based on the information given in
Case 27-2), and technically, Kroll was the owner of the cattle and Kane was supposed to be $6,100 richer.
Regards,
*****
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help