Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an act in India dating from the British colonial rule, that is still in force with significant amendments recently. It deals with the law governing the usage of negotiable instruments in India. The word "negotiable" means transferable and an "instrument" is a document giving legal effect by the virtue of the law
Cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Issues relating to the recovery of money. Issues under the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Issues relating to labour disputes. Issues relating to public utility bills such as electricity or water, excluding non-compoundable offenses. Issues relating to matrimony. 2.
In the Commonwealth of Nations almost all jurisdictions have codified the law relating to negotiable instruments in a Bills of Exchange Act, e.g. Bills of Exchange Act 1882 in the UK, Bills of Exchange Act 1890 in Canada, Bills of Exchange Act 1908 in New Zealand, Bills of Exchange Act 1909 in Australia, [2] the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in India and the Bills of Exchange Act 1914 in ...
In commercial law, a holder in due course (HDC) is someone who takes a negotiable instrument in a value-for-value exchange without reason to doubt that the instrument will be paid. If the instrument is later found not to be payable as written, a holder in due course can enforce payment by the person who originated it and all previous holders ...
It uses negotiable instruments as an example of formal contracts, such as: checks, drafts, promissory notes, and certificates of deposit. These examples are all required to have special formation under the Uniform Commercial Code. [3]
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
An acceptance is an agreement, by express act or implied from conduct, to the terms of an offer, including the prescribed manner of acceptance, so that an enforceable contract is formed. [ 2 ] In what is known as a battle of the forms , when the process of offer and acceptance is not followed, it is still possible to have an enforceable ...
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal negotiable instruments were governed by federal law, and thus the federal court had the authority to fashion a common law rule.