Kane was in fact a holder in due course because he meet all four
requirements. He received payment he was owed with the
understanding it was worth what he was owed. He had no part in the
agreement between Gerald and Gerald's mother and took it as a good
faith transaction. Finally there was no sign Gerald's mother gave him
the check under duress or that it was falsified.
a a a a a This is a case of Gerald's mother trying to get out of an
obligation she committed. Her actions were no fault of Kane. At the
time of the transaction she believed she was getting her money back
and realized she wasn't after the fact. If she had given Kane cash she
wouldn't have been able to sue Kane for her money back. She paid a
debt ant tried to use a loophole the bank had to offer to escape her
agreement. When you write someone a check it should be like cash. A
person should be bound to pay a check they write from an ethical
perspective. She shouldn't get to change her mind on a payment
because her son found himself in a bind.
Dynamic Business Law Nancie Kubasec 5th edition
