In reviewing the case of Kane v. Kroll, I believe there is evidence that supports Kane was
a holder in due course. The evidence presented meets the requirements of holder in due
course which are: “the holder must take the instrument (1) for value; (2) in good faith; and
(3) without notice that it is overdue or has been dishonored or of any defense against or
claim it on the part of any person” (Kubasek et al., 2020, p. 0635). Judge Myse uses
§403.302 STATS (2) to establish the first requirement. “A holder takes for value when he
takes an instrument in payment for an antecedent claim against any person” (Kubasek et
al., 2020,) There is no proof of bad faith on Kane’s part or that he had awareness of the
agreement in place between Gerald and Grace. When Kane accepted the check, it was for
the value of the cows and the argument that they could have cancelled the check would not
hold up well in this specific instance.
Laws can be looked at in different ways by different groups. The judge decided to reverse
the initial decision based on what he believed was the truth shared in the court. The
ambiguity certainly surrounds the “good faith” requirement mentioned above.
I believe the ethical value that guided the decision was honesty. He believed Kane was
being honest with what was presented in court which deemed him a holder in due course.
References
Kubasek, N., Browne, N. M., Herron, D., Dhooge, L., & Barkacs, L. (2020). Dynamic
Business Law (5th ed.). McGraw Hill.
