Divergent Theories and Practical Similarities Order Instructions: Please read below for information concerning assignment.
Support responses with examples and use APA formatting in the paper. You may access the school’s website by logging into:
https://mycampus.southuniversity.edu/portal/server.pt
Please note that when you log into the website you must click launch class, and on the next screen click syllabus to view this week’s readings (week 3) and Academic Resources to access the school’s library.
To support your work, use the textbook, lectures and scholarly outside sources. As in all assignments, cite your sources in your work and provide references for the citations in APA format. By Wednesday, October 19, 2016, submit your answers for TWO of the six scenarios to this Discussion Area.
• Frank writes a check for $200. Galvin steals the check, alters to amount to $2,000 and negotiates the check to Helen, who takes it in good faith, for value and without notice of the alteration. When Helen attempts to recover on the check, Frank refuses to pay more than the check’s original amount of $200. If Helen sues Frank, what will she recover based on the UCC?
• Jackie visited her grandfather, Ken, in the hospital. Ken loved his only granddaughter and wrote her a check to help pay her tuition at college. Ken signed and dated the check but entered 5000 colleges next to “For” in the lower left corner. Jackie completed the check for $5,000 and deposited the check in her bank account. Before the check cleared Ken’s bank, he died. Is Jackie still entitled to collect on the check? Support your answer with the applicable law.
Divergent Theories and Practical Similarities Sample Answer
Frank writes a check for $200. Galvin steals the check, alters to amount to $2,000 and negotiates the check to Helen, who takes it in good faith, for value and without notice of the alteration. When Helen attempts to recover on the check, Frank refuses to pay more than the check’s original amount of $200. If Helen sues Frank, what will she recover based on the UCC? In the event that Helen sues Frank, she will be able to recover the original amount on the check valued at $200 [section 3-407 (c) (ii)]. This is because the check was fraudulently modified and could only be enforced based on its initial terms (Twomey, Jennings & Greene, 2016). In any case, material modification of a negotiable instrument is tangible evidence that will prevent Helen from getting paid $2,000. From a legal perspective, Galvin who was behind the alteration is liable to Helen for the $2,000 [UCC 3-407 (b)] because Galvin is devoid of any material defense. However, Helen who took the check in good faith and who was not informed of the alteration may put into effect rights with regards to the instrument based on its initial terms or its terms as completed based on the statute as stipulated in [section 3-407 (c) )(1)], (Perry, 2016).
Jackie visited her grandfather, Ken, in the hospital. Ken loved his only granddaughter and wrote her a check to help pay her tuition at college. Ken signed and dated the check but entered 5000 colleges next to for in the lower left corner. Jackie completed the check for $5,000 and deposited the check in her bank account. Before the check cleared Ken’s bank, he died. Is Jackie still entitled to collect on the check? Support your answer with the applicable law.
Yes: Since the check was appended with Ken’s signature, legally Jackie has the authority to enforce the instrument to obtain payment. Again, it also shows that there are no forged or missing endorsements (Twomey, Jennings & Greene, 2016). Moreover, Ken’s death does not in any way impact the bank’s position to honor a check drawn on the client’s account until the bank realizes Ken’s death and has a considerable amount of time to act based on the information. Since the bank is not aware of Ken’s death, it is under obligation to make payment to Jackie upon presenting the check [UCC Section 4-405]. Nonetheless, even if the bank discovers about Ken’s death, it may still go ahead and pay Jackie provided a legitimate order to halt any payment does not exist.
Divergent Theories and Practical Similarities References
Perry, C. (2016). Good faith in English and US contract law: Divergent theories, practical similarities. Business Law International, 17(1), 27-39,1-2. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1802591068?accountid=45049
Twomey, D., Jennings, M., & Greene, S. (2016). Anderson’s Business Law and the Legal Environment, Comprehensive Volume. Nelson Education. Retrieved from https://digitalbookshelf.southuniversity.edu/#/books/9781305856516/cfi/0!/4/4@0.00:0.0 0
