Universal defenses include the following:
Holders in due course are not immune from all defenses. A real, as opposed to a personal, defense may be asserted against the HDC. Personal defenses include fraud in the inducement, failure of consideration, nonperformance of a condition precedent, and the like.
The holder in due course is really the crux of the concept of commercial paper and the key to its success and importance. What the holder in due course gets is an instrument free of claims or defenses by previous possessors.
An HDC is not subject to the obligor’s personal defenses In negotiable-instrument law, defenses that are not good against a holder in due course. . But a holder who is not an HDC is subject to them: he takes a negotiable instrument subject to the possible personal claims and defenses of numerous people.
What the holder in due course gets is an instrument free of claims or defenses by previous possessors. A holder with such a preferred position can then treat the instrument almost as money, free from the worry that someone might show up and prove it defective.
An HDC in a nonconsumer transaction is not subject to personal defenses, but he is subject to the so-called real defenses (or “universal defenses”)—they are good against an HDC.
Under UCC Section 3-302, a holder in due course who is entitled to protection of the law and vested with the right of debt collection must have purchased the right to collect on the debt (or been assigned the right to collect) while acting in good faith.
Requirements for Being a Holder in Due Course There cannot be any clear proof of forgery or unauthenticated action of the negotiable document, or instrument. The document must have been accepted for its value. It must have been accepted in good faith.
Constructive notice through public filing or recording is sufficient notice to prevent a person from being a holder in due course. Bill issues a negotiable promissory note to Paula, who indorses it in blank and delivers it to Allen.
following conditions: (1) That it is complete and regular upon its face; (2) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, if such was the fact; (3) That he took it in good faith and for value; (4) That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no ...
(1) A holder in due course is a holder who takes the instrument (a) for value; and (b) in good faith; and (c) without notice that it is overdue or has been dishonored or of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person. (2) A payee may be a holder in due course.
(1) A “negotiable instrument” means a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer.
A holder in due course (HDC) is protected from common law defenses that arise in contracts. To be a HDC, the following requirements have to be met: the note is negotiable, are a holder of the note, the authenticity of the note is not in question, good faith, for value, and without notice.
Duress, mental incapacity, or illegality that renders the obligation void (UCC, Section 3-305(a)) Fraud in the execution (UCC, Section 3-305(a)) Discharge of which the holder has notice when he takes the instrument (UCC, Section 3-601)
A real defense is a justification for a maker or drawer not to honor a negotiable instrument even if it has been transferred to a holder in due course (or "HDC") because it makes the instrument “void” according to Uniform Commercial Code §3-305 comment 1, thus the defense can't be "cut off" by the transfer to an HDC.
A holder in due course acquires the right to make a claim for the instrument's value against its originator and intermediate holders. Even if one of these parties passed the instrument in bad faith or in a fraudulent transaction, a holder in due course may retain the right to enforce it.
Holder in Due Course (HDC) A holder who acquires a negotiable instrument for value, in good faith, and without notice that the instrument is overdue, that it has been dishonored, that any person has a defense or claim against it, or in any way question its authenticity. Indorsee.
A holder in due course takes a negotiable instrument free of all defenses that could be asserted by any party to the instrument. As a general rule, a holder in due course takes a negotiable instrument subject to any claims that could be asserted to the instrument by any person.
The "holder in due course" doctrine, as implemented by Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, says that a party who acquires a negotiable instrument in good faith, for value, and without notice of certain facts, and who also meets some additional requirements, takes the instrument free of competing claims of ...
Imo, there are two very important things we need to fully understand to defend our homes: the UCC and the laws of evidence. The UCC may provide avenues of discovery, as well as reasonable argument that without that discovery, adjudication just can’t be made.
Unclean hands used to be an important part of valid law that held some measure of admiration and respect entitled to the honor in which it was held. That intangible principle long ago was dumped in favor of predatory profits as not lucrative enough to remain as a fundamental core of securitization law.
There are 3 certified questions before the WA SC. One of them is if MERS may be named a ben in WA dots pursuant to a particular WA
Fraud in the execution occurs when a person is deceived into signing a negotiable instrument believing that he is signing something other than a negotiable instrument. This defense cannot be raised, however if a reasonable inquiry would have revealed the nature and terms of the instrument. Thus, the signer’s age, experience, and intelligence are relevant.
Attorney Network Expands to Over 150 Lawyers in 37 States
Personal defenses are used to avoid payment to an ordinary holder of a negotiable instrument. Personal defenses are:
The UCC cited is under article 3 and is relevant to negotiable instruments . But I can’t help remembering those 2 cases I have somewhere wherein the banksters claimed these notes are not negotiable instruments. Fwiw, I’ll link them when I find them.
prev: Chapter 12. Defenses Against Holder In Due Course. A. Defenses Not Available Against Holder In Due Course-Personal Defenses
A real defense is one good against any one whether holder in due course or not. There are some defenses good even against a holder in due course. They are called real defenses. They are, at least generally, defenses of an unusual character, not those going to the merits of a transaction, but rather to its nature as a legal act.
If not made with guilty intent yet still purposely it is nevertheless an alteration and the maker cannot be made liable upon the instrument as changed. The alteration must be material in order to give the promissor any defense. The statute declares that "Any alteration which changes: 1. The date; 2.
The uniform act provides that where an instrument is altered and has come into the hands of a holder in due course , although the alteration is a good defense against him, he may yet recover on the instrument according to the original tenor. Sec. 94. Fraud Going To The Execution.
The policy of the law of commercial paper requires that a purchaser (holder in due course) be unaffected by any defenses between the immediate parties; but the policy of the law in other fields runs at times counter to those considerations and exerts a pressure that causes the negotiable principle to yield. In this chapter the so-called real ...
If the statute declares the instrument void, it becomes so to all purposes and can give no rights to any one. The chief case in which an instrument is declared void as to everyone is the case of an instrument executed as a part of a gambling transaction.123
Personal incapacity to contract is a defense good against any holder. An insane person117 or a minor118 can plead his defense against even a holder in due course. Sec. 92. Forgery. Forgery is a real defense. Very clearly a person can set up that an instrument sued on is not an instrument made by him or by his authority;
This section is from the book "American Commercial Law Series ", by Alfred W. Bays. Also available from Amazon: American commercial law series.
A title cannot be acquired against one through forgery of his name; assuming there are no peculiar circumstances estopping him to set up the forgery.
That the instrument has been materially altered Is a defense that can be set up against a holder in due course; unless the alteration was made possible by the careless manner in which the instrument was drawn. But a holder of an altered instrument may recover on it according to its original tenor.
The fraud whereby one Is induced to execute, accept or indorse a negotiable instrument under the impression that he is performing some other act with an entirely different legal effect, gives rise to a defense good against everyone, unless one is because of his negligence or otherwise estopped to set it up.
By statute In many Jurisdictions it is declared that if an instrument is founded upon certain illegal considerations, as for Instance, a gambling consideration, it shall be utterly void. In such cases the Instrument is of no effect even In the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.