1.Read Case 20.1: Las Vegas Sands, LLB, dba Venetian Resort Hotel Casino v. Nehme (p. 356). Answer the questions at the end of the case.         2. Read Case 21.1: Bank of Colorado v. Berwick

********* ***** *********** *********** name:Mar ** 2016Federal ***** Case1 **** **** ****** Vegas”Nehme perform ********* ** ******** *** to **** *** marker Amine Nehme * **************** occupant ** * ****** ****** ** the “Venetian” ** authorized ******** **** in “Las ***** ********* *** ************** is owned ****** ***** ***** ****** Nehme ********* for * ****** extension **** *** ******** ** ********* a ******** ****** *********** ********* ***** ********* to ***** all ******** *** **** ******* *** ****** **** *** “Venetian” ********* a ****** line of **** ** Nehme ***** ******* ** the ******** ** marked ******** **** ****** *** $500000 payable ** the Venetian ** traded the ****** *** ***** and **** *** $500000 ***** ** chips ******* ********* ** **** ***** ** left *** ******** **** the ****** Hence the Venetian introduced the ******* ****** to ******* ** ********** *** **** ********** ** *** marker ** *** ***** *** ****** *** returned for lacking ****** *** ******** **** Nehme *** ********* to *** * ********* ************** Presently * *** *********** ***** disagree **** that ******* **** ****** ***** ** **** It causes ****** ** *** additional problem however it helps *** ******** ***** *** significantly more **** **** would not **** and **** ** the reason **** as of now do ***** proper ****** to individuals ******* credit ****** *** clubhouse ** benefit **** **** ******* *** *** majority ** the general ********** **** utilization advance credit **** ***** significantly more **** **** **** regularly ***** *** **** ********* ****** **** ***** credit ********** since *** blast ***** **** clubhouse ***** *** *** **** *********** ****** *********** and **** ****** *** **** **** ** spend ** *** **** that ****** ******* **** some assistance **** ********** ** *********** **** the ***** years2 Case 211 **** ** ******** v ************* ******** ******* ********* ** ******* *** ***** ** *** “Sands” *** ******** *** *** ******* charge ** *** ***** *** on the next day ** *** *** pay back ** ************* *** ****** ***** ******** ********** * ****** “Motion for ******* *********** against ******* and * Motion *** “Partial ******* *********** against ************ Bank ** *********** He *** ******* ** *********** ******* *** ***** ***** ******** **** ***** ** ***** ********* **** ** ******** documented * *** ***** ***** ******** a Rebutter and a ********** to *** ******** ********* **** ** ******** filed * Motion *** Summary ******** ******* for * ******* releasing ** of **** ********* ** 28 *** * § **** *********** Berwick *** Las Vegas ***** ********* *** Bank ** ******** ********** ****** **** ******** ******* ********** *** against ******* *** principle ** *** 3-305 applies ** ***** ***** an *** *** ***** to recoup *** misfortune ** *** ********* ********** ******* **** decides ******** says that ** ********* ********** *** raise ******* **** ********** of the possibility **** *** ****** ********* is demonstrated It ** ************ ******* **** ***** *** a fake ****** ** on Berwick ** the ********* **** *** ***** ********* *********** can't ** ****** against **** ****** **** **** ************ ****** *** not *** ******* ** ** ought to ** *** ******* ****** ****** ** attempting ** ***** *** misfortune on the ***** ******* ** *** ********* ** ******** ********* ************* ** *** be ******** **** ***** *** *** ********* *********** *** ** *********** and *********** when ***************** ** the ********* *** *** **** *** ** ***** ** ********** *** any ******** ************** **** *** *********** ** ******* v SunTrust *************** ********** ** ******** **** ********** regarding ******* ** the ************** ********* accommodating *** ********* with * ***** to ***** **** proclamations and planning financial reports ******** additionally **** **** of *** ************** ******* payable *** ************ ********* ****** ** ****** **** *** ********* ** *********** ** **** ** ***** **** **** **** ***** after ********* *** ********** ** *********** ******** produced Rose's **** ** a ***** for ***** made ******* ** neither *** ******** ************ ****** ************* ***** ***** *** *** * ******** *** Spacemakers ******** *** ********* **** **** checks ******** $22320 *** ******* ** ****** * Thus ******** *** ********* ** can be concluded **** ***** *** *** ********** instruments can ** ***** *** *********** **** ***** ** *** ********** *** *** **** *** It cannot be ******* *** *** ******** ****** Under UCC ***** *** *** ********* ** *** **** ********* in *** *********** ** ************ ** ************ ** *** same record the client ought ** ****** ** ****** ** *** **** ***** ** 30 **** **** *** **** ** **** proclamation was ******** to a ********** customer *** rule UCC 4-406 ** used ** ******** ******** prosecution bank ******* frequently sue ***** ***** ***** *********** **** ******** *** made * ********* ** ********** ********* ** the front ** *** ** * ******* ****** ** *** customer's checksYes! ********** ***** ethically **** it **** Sun ***** ** try ** recover *** ****** ****** ** *** ********* ** acts ********* when ** **** a letter ** *********** Bank” *** ** is insisting that the ***** ** **** credit $523106 to *** financial credit for the **** ****** Although *** **** ******** ** *** *** he *** ****** **** ********* the ****** ** *** **** ****** **** “SunTrust”ReferencesUsers **** **** *** ******* COURT **** Negotiable *******************

Click here to download attached files: Federal Court Case.docx