Instant Quote

  • FREE formating
  • FREE amendments
  • FREE revisions
  • FREE title page
  • FREE outline
  • Premium quality
  • 24/7 support
  • All subjects
  • Punctual & fast
  • Experienced writers
  • Archive for the ‘Essays’ Category

    Adams, who reads with difficulty, arranged to borrow $2,000 from Bell.

    Bell prepared a note, which Adams read laboriously. As Adams was about to sign it, Bell diverted Adams’s attention and substituted the following paper, which was identical to the note Adams had read except that the amounts were different: On June 1, 2010, I promise to pay Ben Bell or order Twelve Thousand Dollars with interest from date at 16 percent. This note is secured by certificate No. 13 for 100 shares of stock of Brookside Mills, Inc. Adams did not detect the substitution, signed as maker, handed the note and stock certificate to Bell, and received from Bell $2,000. Bell indorsed and sold the paper to Fore, a holder in due course, who paid him $11,000. Fore presented the note at maturity to Adams, who refused to pay. What are Fore’s rights, if any, against Adams?

    Read More | Order Now

    On January 2, 2010, seventeen year-old Martin

    On January 2, 2010, seventeen year-old Martin paid $2,000 for a used motorboat to use in his fishing business, after Dealer’s fraudulent misrepresentation of the condition of the boat. Martin signed an installment contract for $1,500, and gave Dealer the following instrument as down payment: Dated:________2010 I promise to pay to the order of Dealer, six months after date, the sum of $500 without interest. This is given as a down payment on an installment contract for a motorboat. (signed) Martin Dealer, on July 1, sold his business to Henry and included this note in the transaction. Dealer indorsed the note in blank and handed it to Henry, who left the note in his office safe. On July 10, Sharpie, an employee of Henry, without authority, stole the note and sold it to Bert for $300, indorsing the note ‘‘Sharpie.’’ At the time, in Bert’s presence, Sharpie filled in the date on the note as February 2, 2010. Bert demanded payment from Martin, who refused to pay. What are Bert’s rights against Martin?

    Read More | Order Now

    McLaughlin borrowed $10,000 from Adler, who, apprehensive about McLaughlin’s ability to pay, demanded security.

    McLaughlin indorsed and delivered to Adler a negotiable promissory note executed by Topping for $12,000 payable to McLaughlin’s order in twelve equal monthly installments. The note did not contain an acceleration clause, but it recited that the consideration for the note was McLaughlin’s promise to paint and shingle Topping’s barn. At the time McLaughlin transferred the note to Adler, the first installment was overdue and unpaid. Adler was unaware that the installment had not been paid. Topping did not pay any of the installments on the note. When the last installment became due, Adler presented the note to Topping for payment. Topping refused upon the ground that McLaughlin had not painted or reshingled her barn. What are Adler’s rights, if any, against Topping on the note?

    Read More | Order Now

    McEnolly purchased a refrigerator

    McEnolly purchased a refrigerator for his home from Perrault Appliance Store for $700. McEnolly paid $200 in cash and signed an installment contract for $500, which in its entirety stated: January 15, 2010 I promise to pay to the order of Perrault Appliance Store the sum of $500 in ten equal monthly installments. (signed) McEnolly Perrault negotiated the installment contract to Hughes, who took the instrument for value, in good faith, without notice of any claim or defense of any party, and without question of the instrument’s authenticity. After McEnolly had paid two installments, the refrigerator ceased operating, and McEnolly wishes to recover his down payment and first two monthly payments and to discontinue further payments. What outcome?

    Read More | Order Now

    Adams, by fraudulent representations, induced Barton to purchase one hundred shares of the capital stock of the Evermore Oil Company.

    The shares were worthless. Barton executed and delivered to Adams a negotiable promissory note for $5,000, dated May 5, in full payment for the shares, due six months after date. On May 20, Adams indorsed and sold the note to Cooper for $4,800. On October 21, Barton, having learned that Cooper now held the note, notified Cooper of the fraud and stated he would not pay the note. On December 1, Cooper negotiated the note to Davis who, while not a party, had full knowledge of the fraud perpetrated on Barton. Upon refusal of Barton to pay the note, Davis sues Barton for $5,000. Is Davis a holder in due course or, if not, does he have the rights of a holder in due course? Explain.

    Read More | Order Now

    Donna gives Peter a check for $3,000 in return for a personal computer.

    The check is dated December 2. Peter transfers the check for value to Howard on December 14, and Howard deposits it in his bank on December 20. In the meantime, Donna has discovered that the personal computer is not what was promised and has stopped payment on the check. If Peter and Howard disappear, may the bank recover from Donna notwithstanding her defense of failure of consideration? What will be the bank’s cause of action?

    Read More | Order Now

    Eldon’s Super Fresh Stores, Inc., is a corporation engaged in the retail grocery business.

    William Drexler was the attorney for and the corporate secretary of Eldon’s and was also the personal attorney of Eldon Prinzing, the corporation’s president and sole shareholder. From January 2010 through January 2011, Drexler maintained an active stock trading account in his name with Merrill Lynch. Eldon’s had no such account. On August 12, 2010, Drexler purchased one hundred shares of Clark Oil & Refining Company stock through his Merrill Lynch stockbroker. He paid for the stock with a check drawn by Eldon’s, made payable to Merrill Lynch, and signed by Prinzing. On August 15, 2010, Merrill Lynch accepted the check as payment for Drexler’s stock purchase. There was no communication between Eldon’s and Merrill Lynch until November 2011, fifteen months after the issuance of the check. At that time, Eldon’s asked Merrill Lynch about the whereabouts of the stock certificate and asserted a claim to its ownership. Does Merrill Lynch qualify as a holder in due course? Why?

    Read More | Order Now

    Consolidated Business Forms leased a Phillips business computer from Benchmark.

    Benchmark subsequently transferred the lease and promissory note to Exchange International Leasing Corporation. Consolidated stopped making rental payments when the computer malfunctioned, and Exchange International brought this suit to recover the payments due on the promissory note. Consolidated defends on the grounds that Benchmark prevented its agent, Mr. Spohn, from examining the contents of the agreement between the two companies and further represented that the computer would be removed with a complete refund if it failed to operate properly. Is Exchange subject to Consolidated’s defense?

    Read More | Order Now

    Litton decided to purchase photocopiers to use in its offices.

    Angelo Buquicchio, a Royal (a division of Litton) salesman, recommended that Litton lease the machines from Regent. Regent was a company totally independent of Litton and had agreed to give Buquicchio ‘‘service fees’’ or, more appropriately, bribes. Regent borrowed money from Bankers Trust to finance purchases and transferred the Litton leases as security. A clause in the leases permitted transfer and provided that the transferee’s rights would be independent of any claims or offsets of Litton as against Regent. Litton defaulted on the obligations, and Litton argues that Regent’s bribery of Royal’s employee rendered Litton’s obligations a nullity and a defense against the banks as holders in due course. Explain whether Litton is correct in its assertion.

    Read More | Order Now

    Walter Duester purchased a John Deere combine from St. Paul Equipment.

    John Deere Co. was the lender and secured party under the agreement. The combine was pledged as collateral. Duester defaulted on his debt, and the manager of St. Paul, Hansen, was instructed to repossess the combine. Hansen went to Duester’s farm to accomplish this. Duester told him that he had received some payments for custom combining and would immediately purchase a cashier’s check to pay the John Deere debt. Hansen followed Duester to the defendant, Boelus State Bank. Hansen remained outside, and Duester returned in a few minutes with a cashier’s check in the amount of the balance of his indebtedness payable to John Deere. The check had been signed by an authorized bank employee. When John Deere, however, presented the check to the bank for payment shortly thereafter, the bank refused to pay, claiming that Duester acquired the cashier’s check by theft. Is John Deere subject to this defense? Why?

    Read More | Order Now
    • 10+ years experience in writing.
    • A wide range of services.
    • Satisfied and returning customers.
    • 100% privacy guaranteed.
    • Only custom-written papers.
    • Free amendments upon request.