in Kane v Kroll there is a lot of evidence to suggest that Kane was a
holder in due course. To begin with, he did as a matter of fact accept
a check from Grace because she had to put a stop payment on it.
Also Kane accepted the check in good faith because at the time
Grace was unaware her son couldn't pay and was willingly providing
the funds. Finally the check made no note of prior debts or
repayments and it is unreasonable to assume Kane should know
about them; therefore, Kane meets all three components of a Holder
in due course and is entitle to the $6,100 dollars. The ambiguity in
the law is whether or not he knew about issues with the hay sale or
the second loan. I think the ethical value that guided the decision
was the universalization was applied in this situation because every
drawer has an ability to stop payment and if they did and it
constituted a defense to holder in due course than there really
wouldn't be any holders in due Course.
Reference
Kubasek, N., Browne, N. M., Herron, D., Dhoohe, L., & Barkacs, l.
(2019). Dynamic Business Law (5thed.). McGraw Hill.
