Mar 05, 2012 · A holder in due course who has provided value in good faith for a negotiable instrument can be insulated from claims against the original parties to the transaction. In some ways (too complicated too discuss here), the Uniform Commercial Code elevates a holder in due course to a status above a normal party to a contract.
The holder in due course fulfilled a promise after accepting the instrument. The holder can also accept the instrument through means of a lien through a court ruling or bankruptcy sale. The holder could collect the instrument to eliminate preexisting debt. The holder could trade the instrument for another item of equal value.
Sep 26, 2021 · What are the Benefits of Being a Holder in Due Course? Qualifying as a holder in due course (HDC) makes the negotiable instrument more valuable to the holder, as a HDC has a stronger right to payment of the instrument than an ordinary holder. If a holder is not a HDC, her rights in the instrument are the same as the original payee of the instrument prior to transfer.
This lesson can be used to introduce you to the benefits of being a holder in due course or to reinforce your knowledge if you have already received an introduction elsewhere. Approximate Completion Time: As an introduction: 45 minutes; but as reinforcement and review: 30 minutes
The holder in due course is a concept that refers to the party who holds an important, and often negotiable, document. This document is sometimes referred to as an instrument because it is often an instrument of payment. This might include a bank note, draft, or check. The holder is temporarily the owner of the document that holds value.
One of the requirements of the holder in due course is that the instrument must be taken for value. This means that the transfer of the document must have been for its value. In contrast, it cannot be accepted as a gift. There are five different methods in which the holder in due course can accept the document as a source of value:
At some point, the document is negotiated and used as a useful commercial tool. The holder is referred to as the assignee. They are in possession of the assignor's rights and liabilities. The holder is in a very important role. They are responsible for the document that is free of claims from other owners.
If certain conditions are met, a holder of a negotiable instrument may further elevate her rights to enforcement (receive payment) of the negotiable instrument. That is, the holder of a negotiable instrument is elevated to a higher status than that of a simple holder if she qualifies as a holder in due course (HDC).
Qualifying as a holder in due course (HDC) makes the negotiable instrument more valuable to the holder, as a HDC has a stronger right to payment of the instrument than an ordinary holder. If a holder is not a HDC, her rights in the instrument are the same as the original payee of the instrument prior to transfer.
The holder-in-due-course doctrine is important because it allows the holder of a negotiable instrument to take the paper free from most claims and defenses against it. Without the doctrine, such a holder would be a mere transferee. The UCC provides that to be an HDC, a person must be a holder of paper that is not suspiciously irregular, and she must take it in good faith, for value, and without notice of anything that a reasonable person would recognize as tainting the instrument. A payee may be an HDC but usually would not be (because he would know of problems with it). The shelter rule says that a transferee of an instrument acquires the same rights her transferor had, so a person can have the rights of an HDC without satisfying the requirements of an HDC (provided she does not engage in any fraud or illegality related to the transaction).
The shelter rule#N#Under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the transferee of an instrument acquires the same rights his or her transferor had.#N#provides that the transferee of an instrument acquires the same rights that the transferor had. Thus a person who does not himself qualify as an HDC can still acquire that status if some previous holder (someone “upstream”) was an HDC.
Section 3-103 (4) of the UCC defines good faith#N#Defined in the Uniform Commercial Code as “honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.”#N#as “honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.”
“Honesty in fact” is subjectively tested. Suppose Lorna Love had given Rackets, Inc., a promissory note for the tennis rackets. Knowing that it intended to deliver defective tennis rackets and that Love is likely to protest as soon as the shipment arrives, Rackets offers a deep discount on the note to its fleet mechanic: instead of the $1,000 face value of the note, Rackets will give it to him in payment of an outstanding bill of $400. The mechanic, being naive in commercial dealings, has no suspicion from the large discount that Rackets might be committing fraud. He has acted in good faith under the UCC test. That is not to say that no set of circumstances will ever exist to warrant a finding that there was a lack of good faith.
It obviously would be unjust to permit a holder to enforce an instrument that he knew—when he acquired it—was defective, was subject to claims or defenses, or had been dishonored. A purchaser with knowledge cannot become an HDC. But proving knowledge is difficult, so the UCC at Section 3-302 (2) lists several types of notice that presumptively defeat any entitlement to status as HDC. Notice is not limited to receipt of an explicit statement; it includes an inference that a person should have made from the circumstances. The explicit things that give a person notice include those that follow.
So a clever forgery would not by itself defeat the HDC status, unless the holder had notice of it.
The payee can be an HDC, but in the usual circumstances, a payee would have knowledge of claims or defenses because the payee would be one of the original parties to the instrument. Nevertheless, a payee may be an HDC if all the prerequisites are met. For instance, Blackstone fraudulently convinces Whitestone into signing a note as a comaker, with Greenstone as the payee. Without authority, Blackstone then delivers the note for value to Greenstone. Having taken the note in good faith, for value, without notice of any problems, and without cause to question its validity because of apparent irregularities, Greenstone is an HDC. In any event, typically the HDC is not the payee of the instrument, but rather, is an immediate or remote transferee of the payee.
[32] Even in England, this rule of estoppels does not apply to the case where a bill is drawn to the drawer™s order and indorsed by him, in which case, the acceptor though he cannot deny the signature of the drawer , may still question the genuineness of his signature as indorser. [33] In one case a contrary view was taken [34] but Byles points out in his book on Bills of Exchange, 24 th Ed, P. 167 that clearly the acceptor is not estopped disputing the validity and genuineness of the indorsement , as distinguished from the drawer™s then capacity to indorse.
Section 9 implies and contemplates that there must be a negotiation or a transfer to the holder in due course by someone who has the authority to transfer the negotiable instrument. The transfer and the negotiation must be of an inchoate instrument, which is not a negotiable instrument under the Act. From the point of view of the proviso ...
Holder in Due Course is defined as a holder who acquires the negotiable instrument in good faith for consideration before it becomes due for payment and without any idea of a defective title of the party who transfers the instrument to him. Therefore, a holder in due course.
As per Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, a holder is a party who is entitled in his own name and has legally obtained the possession of the negotiable instrument, i.e. bill, note or cheque, from a party who transferred it , by delivery or endorsement, to recover the amount from the parties liable to meet it. ...
As per Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, a holder is a party who is entitled in his own name and has legally obtained the possession of the negotiable instrument, i.e. bill, note or cheque, from a party who transferred it, by delivery or endorsement, to recover the amount from the parties liable to meet it. The party transferring the negotiable ...
A holder cannot sue all the prior parties whereas a holder in due course, has the right to sue all the prior parties for payment. A holder may or may not have obtained the instrument in good faith. On the other hand, the holder in due course must be a bonafide possessor of the negotiable instrument.
When the instrument is payable to bearer, HDC refers to any person who becomes its possessor for value, before the amount becomes overdue. On the other hand, when the instrument is payable to order, HDC may mean any person who became endorsee or payee of the negotiable instrument, before it matures.
A person who legally obtains the negotiable instrument, with his name entitled on it, to receive the payment from the parties liable, is called the holder of a negotiable instrument. A person who acquires the negotiable instrument bonafide for some consideration, whose payment is still due, is called holder in due course.