Business Law Case Study

Case 20.4 Reference to Another Agreement

1. 1

From the information given, the reference to the mortgage causes it to be nonnegotiable

1. 2

One of the reasons is that Holly’s initial contact was conditional promise. When Rogers and Blythe transferred rights to the Bank, the promise later turned to be unconditional and not negotiable due to the existing risk that Holly Hill may not pay (Cheeseman, 2014).

Case 20.5 Ethics Case

1. 1

When the bank accepts the check, then it is a bearer paper

1. 2

The person cashing the check may not have acted illegally because the way the check is made payable affects the one indorsing it. If the check is made payable to the bearer, it means cash is payable to the one possessing the check (Cheeseman, 2014). Therefore, the person cashing may not be unethical for this case.

Case 21.1 Transfer Warranty

1. 1

Pontiac Bank is not liable on this transfer warranty

1. 2

This is because Pontiac Bank never transferred the instrument directly to Matco. Cox made a warrant transfer to Pontiac Bank and Pontiac made a warrant transfer to the payer bank. Therefore, with this transfer chain, the only party that could sue Pontiac is the payer bank but not Matco (Cheeseman, 2014).

Case 22.3 Wrongful Dishonor

1. 1

In this case, the bank has reasons to win the case.

1. 2

Despite of the damages it had caused to Goodwins, it is important to look at the causes of these actions (Cheeseman, 2014). When looking at the causes, we find that they were not intentional as Goodwins stated. And on top of that the bank took a step to apologize.

References

Cheeseman, H.R. (2014). Contemporary Business and Online Commerce Law. Prentice Hall