The End of Negotiable Instruments: Bringing Payment Systems Law Out of the Past

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The End of Negotiable Instruments: Bringing Payment Systems Law Out of the Past file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The End of Negotiable Instruments: Bringing Payment Systems Law Out of the Past book. Happy reading The End of Negotiable Instruments: Bringing Payment Systems Law Out of the Past Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The End of Negotiable Instruments: Bringing Payment Systems Law Out of the Past at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The End of Negotiable Instruments: Bringing Payment Systems Law Out of the Past Pocket Guide.

  • The Law of Modern Payment Systems?
  • Also Available In:.
  • Reserve Bank of India - Speeches.
  • ‘Scholar, Teacher, Leader, Friend’ Retiring After 36 Years at BC Law.

See for example, Sections , and This section is based on former Section Subsection 2 of former Section prohibited rescission of a negotiation against holders in due course. Subsection b of Section extends this protection to payor banks. Subsection a applies even though the lack of capacity or the illegality, is of a character which goes to the essence of the transaction and makes it entirely void.

It is inherent in the character of negotiable instruments that any person in possession of an instrument which by its terms is payable to that person or to bearer is a holder and may be dealt with by anyone as a holder. The principle finds its most extreme application in the well settled rule that a holder in due course may take the instrument even from a thief and be protected against the claim of the rightful owner.

The remedy of a person with a claim to an instrument is to recover the instrument by replevin or otherwise; to impound it or to enjoin its enforcement, collection or negotiation; to recover its proceeds from the holder; or to intervene in any action brought by the holder against the obligor. As provided in Section c , the claim of the claimant is not a defense to the obligor unless the claimant defends the action. There can be no rescission or other remedy against a holder in due course or a person who pays in good faith and without notice, even though the prior negotiation may have been fraudulent or illegal in its essence and entirely void.

As against any other party the claimant may have any remedy permitted by law. This section is not intended to specify what that remedy may be, or to prevent any court from imposing conditions or limitations such as prompt action or return of the consideration received. All such questions are left to the law of the particular jurisdiction.

Section gives no right that would not otherwise exist. The section is intended to mean that any remedies afforded by other law are cut off only by a holder in due course. In this case, the transferee obtains no rights under this article and has only the rights of a partial assignee.

Section is based on former Section which stated that a transferee received such rights as the transferor had. The former section was confusing because some rights of the transferor are not vested in the transferee unless the transfer is a negotiation. For example, a transferee that did not become the holder could not negotiate the instrument, a right that the transferor had.

Although transfer of an instrument might mean in a particular case that title to the instrument passes to the transferee, that result does not follow in all cases. The right to enforce an instrument and ownership of the instrument are two different concepts. A thief who steals a check payable to bearer becomes the holder of the check and a person entitled to enforce it, but does not become the owner of the check. If the thief transfers the check to a purchaser the transferee obtains the right to enforce the check.

Ownership rights in instruments may be determined by principles of the law of property, independent of Article 3, which do not depend upon whether the instrument was transferred under Section Moreover, a person who has an ownership right in an instrument might not be a person entitled to enforce the instrument.

The End of Negotiable Instruments: Bringing Payment Systems Law Out of the Past

For example, suppose X is the owner and holder of an instrument payable to X. X sells the instrument to Y but is unable to deliver immediate possession to Y. Although the document may be effective to give Y a claim to ownership of the instrument, Y is not a person entitled to enforce the instrument until Y obtains possession of the instrument. No transfer of the instrument occurs under Section a until it is delivered to Y. An instrument is a reified right to payment.

The right is represented by the instrument itself. For example, if a check is presented for payment by delivering the check to the drawee, no transfer of the check to the drawee occurs because there is no intent to give the drawee the right to enforce the check. Although the transferee is not a holder, under subsection b the transferee obtained the rights of the transferor as holder.

Because the transferee is not a holder, there is no presumption under Section that the transferee, by producing the instrument, is entitled to payment. The instrument, by its terms, is not payable to the transferee and the transferee must account for possession of the unindorsed instrument by proving the transaction through which the transferee acquired. Proof of a transfer to the transferee by a holder is proof that the transferee has acquired the rights of a holder. At that point the transferee is entitled to the presumption under Section Under subsection b a holder in due course that transfers an instrument transfers those rights as a holder in due course to the purchaser.

The policy is to assure the holder in due course a free market for the instrument. There is one exception to this rule stated in the concluding clause of subsection b. A person who is party to fraud or illegality affecting the instrument is not permitted to wash the instrument clean by passing it into the hands of a holder in due course and then repurchasing it.

Subsection c applies only to a transfer for value.

You Are Here

It applies only if the instrument is payable to order or specially indorsed to the transferor. The transferee acquires, in the absence of a contrary agreement, the specifically enforceable right to the indorsement of the transferor.

Navigation menu

Unless otherwise agreed, it is a right to the general indorsement of the transferor with full liability as indorser, rather than to an indorsement without recourse. The question may arise if the transferee has paid in advance and the indorsement is omitted fraudulently or through oversight. A transferor who is willing to indorse only without recourse or unwilling to indorse at all should make those intentions clear before transfer.

The agreement of the transferee to take less than an unqualified indorsement need not be an express one, and the understanding may be implied from conduct, from past practice, or from the circumstances of the transaction. Subsection c provides that there is no negotiation of the instrument until the indorsement by the transferor is made. Until that time the transferee does not become a holder, and if earlier notice of a defense or claim is received, the transferee does not qualify as a holder in due course under Section The operation of Section is illustrated by the following cases.

  • Check Fraud and the Common Law at the Intersection of Negligence and the Uniform Commercial Code.
  • Endorsement. Kinds of Endorsement. Negotiable Instruments. Law - video dailymotion.
  • The Bluffers Guide to Cycling (The Bluffers Guides)!
  • American Legends: The Life of Davy Crockett.
  • Florida Bar Journal;

In each case Payee, by fraud, induced Maker to issue a note to Payee. The fraud is a defense to the obligation of Maker to pay the note under Section a 2. Payee negotiated the note to X who took as a holder in due course.

After the instrument became overdue X negotiated the note to Y who had notice of the fraud. Payee then repurchased the note from X. Case 3. X sold the note to Purchaser who received possession.


The note, however, was indorsed to X and X failed to indorse it. Purchaser is a person entitled to enforce the instrument under Section and succeeds to the rights of X as holder in due course. Purchaser is not a holder, however, and under Section Purchaser will have to prove the transaction with X under which the rights of X as holder in due course were acquired.

Case 4. Payee sold the note to Purchaser who took for value, in good faith and without notice of the defense of Maker. Purchaser received possession of the note but Payee neglected to indorse it. Purchaser became a person entitled to enforce the instrument but did not become the holder because of the missing indorsement. If Purchaser received notice of the defense of Maker before obtaining the indorsement of Payee, Purchaser cannot become a holder in due course because at the time notice was received the note had not been negotiated to Purchaser.

If indorsement by Payee was made after Purchaser received notice, Purchaser had notice of the defense when it became the holder. Subsection d restates former Section 3.


The cause of action on an instrument cannot be split. Any indorsement which purports to convey to any party less than the entire amount of the instrument is not effective for negotiation. An indorsement purporting to convey less than the entire instrument does, however, operate as a partial assignment of the cause of action. Subsection d makes no attempt to state the legal effect of such an assignment, which is left to other law. A partial assignee of an instrument has rights only to the extent the applicable law gives rights, either at law or in equity, to a partial assignee.

For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of the instrument. Indorsement is defined in terms of the purpose of the signature. If a blank or special indorsement is made to give rights as a holder to a transferee the indorsement is made for the purpose of negotiating the instrument. Subsection a i. In that case the purpose of the quoted words is to restrict payment of the instrument. Subsection a ii. Subsection a iii. In some cases an indorsement may serve more than one purpose.

DC Code - Article 3. Negotiable Instruments.

In some cases it may not be clear whether a signature was meant to be that of an indorser, a party to the instrument in some other capacity such as drawer, maker or acceptor, or a person who was not signing as a party. The general rule is that a signature is an indorsement if the instrument does not indicate an unambiguous intent of the signer not to sign as an indorser.

Intent may be determined by words accompanying the signature, the place of signature, or other circumstances. For example, suppose a depositary bank gives cash for a check properly indorsed by the payee.