Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on 2b: Case Analysis. It needs to be at least 500 words.It was interesting to note that the Courts held, contrary to the interests of AE, that even th
Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on 2b: Case Analysis. It needs to be at least 500 words.
It was interesting to note that the Courts held, contrary to the interests of AE, that even though the money orders had been stolen and completed without authorisation and had not been “delivered” in that there was never any voluntary transfer of possession, they still amounted to negotiable instruments.
The Courts pointed out that the requisites to negotiability never included references to proper delivery or authorised completion and so these factors did not affect the negotiability of the money orders. If the money orders satisfied the four-part test that was applied in recognising negotiable instruments, the further factors of a lack of proper delivery or unauthorised completion did not reverse the results of that test.
The Courts further pointed out that the UCC provides (see section 3115) for the enforcement of incomplete and undelivered instruments and as such these factors can have no effect on the negotiation of an instrument.
This question was relevant to the fact that AE could escape liability on the basis of unauthorised completion of the money orders only if Triffin was (as per section 3407) a “holder in due course” (HDC). To be a HDC, as described in section 3302(a), Triffin must have acted in good faith, acquired the money orders for value and have had no notice that the money orders were overdue or has been dishonored or of the existence of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person. Unfortunately for Triffin, the last condition was not fulfilled as the Courts held that Triffin had notice of AE’s defences when he took over the instruments from Chuckie’s. As such, Triffin could not be a HDC in his own name.
The Courts held that as Triffin was the transferee or assignee of all the rights under the money orders, he stepped into the shoes of the transferor, Chuckie’s. As long as Chuckie’s was a HDC, Triffin could be too by way of being the assignee of the rights. It was
