(c) Except to the extent that an external party or predecessor in title has rights as a holder from time to time, a person shall not acquire in a timely manner any right of a holder in an instrument that: (i) by judicial proceeding or by purchase in enforcement, bankruptcy, sale with creditors or similar proceedings; (ii) by purchase as part of a mass transaction; is not in the ordinary course of business of the transferor, or (iii) as successor in title of an estate or other organization. Carter submits that her application for summary judgment should have been granted because, as the licensee, she has the right, in a timely manner, to retrieve the cheques from the Omni drawer. Summary: As mentioned above, the owner of an instrument is a person who owns an instrument and has the right to receive such an instrument. An owner may be the original recipient (transmitter) of the manufacturer`s or drawer`s instrument; or the issuer may transfer or trade the instrument to a third party who becomes the holder. Negotiations require a voluntary or involuntary transfer of the instrument and, in the case of a promissory document, the consent of the beneficiary. (A paper forger cannot be a carrier, while a paper holder thief can be a carrier.) An instrument is more valuable to its holder if it is negotiable. In general, individual defences – to which the HRC is not subject – are similar to the set of defences to infringements: lack of consideration; non-quid pro quo; coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation that does not invalidate the transaction; breach of warranty; unauthorized completion of an incomplete instrument; Prepayment. Incapacity that does not invalidate the transaction (other than childhood) is also a personal defense. As the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) says, this includes “mental incompetence, guardianship, ultra vires acts or lack of entrepreneurial capacity to conduct business, or any other disability other than early childhood. If, under State law, the obligation of the instrument becomes completely null and void, the defence may be invoked against a holder in due course. If the effect lies only in the fact that the obligation becomes voidable at the option of the debtor, the defence is interrupted. » Unified Commercial Code, § 3-305, note 1. James White and Robert Summers, in their Hornbook on the UCC, argue that unscrupulous is almost always a self-defense that is inapplicable against an HDC. James White and Robert Summers, Uniform Commercial Code, 2/e, 575 (1980).
But here too, the HDC only frees itself from the personal defence of parties with which it had no relationship. Thus, although the beneficiary of a ticket may be an HDC, if he has dealt with the manufacturer, he is subject to the manufacturer`s defenses. As a stack, it is evident that the eighteen controls meet the definition of a negotiable instrument [UCC 3-104]. Each cheque is payable on demand for a fixed amount to a cardholder and contains no other obligation of the person promising payment, other than payment of the money. In addition, each cheque appears to have been signed by Mr. Hauser using a facsimile stamp that may replace a manual signature with the UCC. [Article 3-401(b) of the UDC provides that “a signature may be made manually or using equipment or machinery. with the current intention of authenticating a scripture.
Hauser Co. does not dispute that the facsimile signature stamp affixed to the cheques is identical to the authorized stamp of Hauser Co. If the owner knows that the paper – like a bill – has already been paid, he cannot enforce it. This is a good reason to take back any notes you have made by the person presenting it to you for payment. Again, a holder is a person who owns a negotiable instrument that is “payable to the bearer or, in the case of an instrument payable to an identified person, if the identified person is in possession.” Uniform Commercial Code, § 1-201(20). An instrument is payable to an identified person if the designated beneficiary is or is assigned to the designated person. So, a holder is someone who owns an instrument and has all the necessary qualities. According to sections 3-407 of the UCC, “fraudulent amendment” means either (1) an unauthorized amendment to an instrument to change a party`s obligation in any respect, or (2) an unauthorized addition of words or numbers, or any other amendment to an incomplete document with respect to a party`s obligation. A fraudulent change will release a party whose obligation is affected by the change, unless that party accepts or is prevented from implementing the change.
But a non-fraudulent change — for example, filling a missed date or granting a lower interest rate — does not release the debtor. In all cases, the person paying or taking the instrument “may pay or collect as completed in accordance with its original terms or, in the case of an incomplete instrument modified by unauthorized completion, in accordance with its terms. Where deficiencies are filled in or an incomplete document is otherwise completed, subsection c imposes the loss on the party who left the incomplete document by authorizing enforcement in its completed form. This result is intended even if the instrument was stolen from the transmitter and completed after the flight. A moral here: do not let instruments with gaps that could be filled lying around. The applicant is active in the acquisition of non-adhered negotiable instruments. In February and March 1999, the plaintiff purchased eighteen disgraced cheques from four different cheque cashing agencies, citing Hauser Co. as a drawer. Cheques totalled $8,826.42. In accordance with the assignment agreements signed by the applicant, each organization stated that it had made the cheques in good faith, without notice of any claim or defence to the cheques, without knowledge that any of the signatures were unauthorized or forged, and expecting the cheques to be deposited upon presentation at the bank from which the cheques were drawn, I would like to ask the Commissioner whether he is prepared to accept the Commission`s proposal.
The eighteen cheques were stamped with a red-green facsimile drawer in the name of Alfred M. Hauser. The eighteen cheques were marked by the bank as “stolen cheques” and marked with the warning “no longer present”. The timely holder is a special type of owner. The holder of a security shall be designated as the holder in good time if he fulfils the following conditions: A person who could not have become HDC directly (e.g. because he had knowledge of a defence or claim) may become one if he takes an HDC as an acquirer as long as he has not been involved in fraud or illegality; relating to the instrument, or was not previously the holder of a defence or claim. This is the rule of protection. The existence of consideration is not important in the case of the holder, but the holder receives the instrument in good time after payment of its full value. The cheques were then transferred to the applicant in accordance with section 3-303, allowing the applicant to obtain the holder within an appropriate time frame. Each company swore that it would transfer the cheques to the applicant in exchange for the consideration received from the applicant. The applicant therefore acquired the holder of the cheque cashing companies in a timely manner when the cheques were transferred to the applicant. In addition, the assignment contracts expressly granted the claimant this right, consistent with the requirement in article 3-403(a) that the transfer must have occurred in order to confer on the acquirer the right to realize the instrument, by stipulating that “all payments [assigning] may be received from any of the said debtors.
are the exclusive property of the [assignee]. Hauser Co. again.