In the case study of Kane vs. Kroll, the judge found that there was
evidence against Krane that he was not the holder in due course. For
this case, there are three criteria that determine if someone is a
holder in due course under § 403.302, STATS which are that the
holder must take the instrument of value; they must do so in good
faith; and without notice that it is overdue or has been dishonored or
of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person
(Kubasek et al., 2020). This evidence was 1) Kane took the check
from Grace as payment for the transaction, 2) there was no evidence
that Kane took the payment in bad faith and 3) that Kroll was not
able to disprove that Kane had dishonored their agreement.
The evidence described above gave Judge Myse enough evidence
under the provisions of the law to rule in Kane's favor because all
three criterion of the law were met, thus influencing the courts
reasoning towards Kane's case. In this particular law, I think there are
no ambiguities and the criteria to be the holder in due course are
simple and publicly accessible.
Kubasek, N., Browne, N. M., Herron, D., Dhoohe, L., & Barkacs, l.
(2019). Dynamic Business Law (5th ed.). McGraw Hill.
