Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
A real defense is a justification for a maker or drawer not to honor a negotiable instrument even if it has been transferred to a holder in due course (or "HDC") because it makes the instrument “void” according to Uniform Commercial Code §3-305 comment 1, [1] thus the defense can't be "cut off" by the transfer to an HDC.
Law pertaining to negotiable instruments. Pages in category "Negotiable instrument law" The following 26 pages are in this category, out of 26 total.
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 ...
The Twelfth Edition of Business Law: Text Cases (Clarkson, Miller & Cross), says that formal contracts are, "contracts that require a special form or method of creation to be enforceable." It uses negotiable instruments as an example of formal contracts, such as: checks, drafts, promissory notes, and certificates of deposit.
The official 2007 edition of the UCC. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), first published in 1952, is one of a number of uniform acts that have been established as law with the goal of harmonizing the laws of sales and other commercial transactions across the United States through UCC adoption by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of the United States.
The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that codified the law relating to bills of exchange.Bills of exchange are widely used to finance trade and, when discounted with a financial institution, to obtain credit.
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.