For this discussion’s case, Kane fulfilled all three elements to
constitute him being a holder in due course. He took the check from
Gerald Kroll’s mother, Grace, for its value as well as in good faith, and
he had no knowledge of any claims or defenses when doing so. a The
court reasoned that Kane was not due to Grace’s defenses regarding
the check since he was considered a holder in due course.
My personal opinion is that there may be ambiguity in this situation. a I
feel that from Kane’s position, he should receive payment for the
agreed upon transaction. On the other hand, I don’t feel that it
should be up to Kane to decide the method and means for securing
this payment. Seeing as Gerald is the other party in this transaction,
Kane should have filed suit against Gerald directly rather than Grace. a
While the results may have turned out the same, I feel this should
have been addressed via the legal system to ensure handling by a
neutral third party. That being said, I do believe it all depends on the
elaboration of the interactions between the three parties. a If Grace
were present and spoke directly with Kane regarding this
arrangement, my previous sentiments would be disregarded.
The ethical values that guided the conclusion of the case may be the
universalization test as well as the Golden Rule. Not only did the
decision need to be guided by the Golden Rule’s essential definition
of reciprocity, the universalization test also guided the decision by
raising the question of whether the decisions in the case allow for a
better example for future similar cases.
Kubasek, N., Browne, N. M., Herron, D., Dhooge, L., & Barkacs, L.
(2019). Dynamic Business Law (5th ed.). McGraw Hill.
