Hi Professor B and Class –
I agree with the ruling of the court in the case of Kane v. Kroll. In order for Mr. Kane to be a
hold in due course he must have the following requirements which is stated in the UCC Section:
302. 1. The party must be a holder of a complete and authentic negotiable instrument. 2. The
holder must take the instrument for value. 3. The hold mush take the instrument in good faith. 4.
The holder must take the instrument without notice of defects. (Kubasek, et al., 2020) I feel that
Mr. Kane did in fact meet all these requirements of due course because he accepted the check
from Mrs. Knoll. When Mr. Kane accepted the check from Mrs. Knoll, who was paying debt for
son who purchased cattle from Mr. Kane. When the check was accepted by Mr. Kane, it was
accepted in good faith and without any notice of defects.
By establishing that Mr. Kane did in fact meet all the requirements for a hold in due course
means the rules of law play into the court’s reasoning. Also, the court’s reasoning was a person
is able to pay off someone else’s debt. I feel as though Mr. Kane should then be in favor
according to the law. In this conclusion the ethical value guided was that Mr. Kane sold the
cows to Gerald and he then accepted a payment from Gerald mother, Mrs. Kroll. She was
helping her son pay off his debt to Mr. Kane. Mr. Kane was not aware that Gerald wasn’t able to
pay his mother back for his debt much more that Mrs. Kroll put a stop payment on the check.
Therefore, the court saw that Gerald made a deal with Mr. Kane and ethically the judge would
have to rule in Mr. Kane’s favor.
-Jenn
References:
Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Herron, D. J., Dhooge, L. J., Barkacs, L. L., & Williamson, C.
(2020). Dynamic business law: 4th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
