The evidence that shows Kane was a holder in due course is… he
decided to maintain his side of the bargain by still trading the
cows/taking Grace’s money as payment (value). Second, he accepts
the check in good faith because Grace never called Kane as a
warning prior but instead canceled the check (which makes sense
because her son told her that the deal fell through). But that’s the
result of the third offense which is Kroll wasn’t aware that the check
was canceled, he went into the bank thinking he got a check but
didn’t.
As far as ambiguities go, I guess it’s more of a question, so at the end
of the second trial which reversed the first judgment, did that mean
that Kane was entitled to that check or was found as a holder in due
course? Because Kroll told his mother that the deal fell through? Like
I understand why the trial happened the second time to prove Kane
was correct, but does it still get the check afterward, despite
(according to Kroll the deal didn’t go through earlier)? In the reading,
I think that was the point but I’m not entirely sure. The ethical value
that guided this conclusion was the three requirements needed to
prove a holder in due course, authentic negotiable instrument, value,
and good faith. Upon those findings alone the court ruled in Kane’s
favor.
Kubasek, N., Browne, N. M., Herron, D., Dhoohe, L., & Barkacs, l.
(2019). Dynamic Business Law (5th ed.). McGraw Hill.
