Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MARCH 2009 BUSINESS LAW CHAPTER 30 DEBRA BARONE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND CASE PROBLEMS 1. 2. Money Mart is considered a holder in due course in this case because Money Mart acted in good faith and had no knowledge that the check had a stop payment against it. Anyways, it would be almost impossible to be able to check to see if that check was good or not given the amount of transactions per day. But I do notice that at retail stores they are able to verify a check. But I think that is because it is an isolated incident whereas a bank sometimes has several checks in one transaction. 3. It is not required that the plaintiff prove that the note had been issued for consideration but the plaintiff must prove that he/she is the holder of the paper or an assignee. Leopold can show that the note was issued to him as the payee. 4 . 5. Kemp was a holder in due course and can recover on the check. 6. Interesting…. .to be a holder in due course, you must take the check in good faith and not assume that there is anything wrong. BUT, if you are in the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/22/2011 for the course FINANCE BUSINESS L taught by Professor Daviddubois during the Spring '09 term at SUNY Empire State.

Page1 / 2


This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online