According to the UCC, a holder in due course is a holder who takes an instrument for value in good faith and devoid of notice of assured claims, as well as defenses on the instrument. It is imperative in the case of ‘Any Kind Checks Cashed, Inc. v. Talcott’ to determine if the holder of the instrument acted in good faith, in fair dealing as is compulsory in order to be considered the holder in due course. According to the Commercial Law Article 3-103 (a) (4); good faith refers to sincerity or honesty in fact and the adherence to logical commercial standards of fair dealing (Twomey, D., & Jennings, M.).
Apart from this, the court upholds the trial court finding that Any Kind did not act in good faith when cashing a check for $10,000. However, Any Kind had been in good faith in later on cashing one more check for $5,700. I agree that ‘Talcott’ was responsible for the $5,700 even despite the fact that he was illegally persuaded to issue a check (Legale .com).
The procedures in place at Any Kind Checks Cashed, Inc.states that a supervisor that has the power as well as authority to approve checks over $2,000. However, the supervisor should have been more cautious due to the unusual amount of the check of $10,00.00. When the second check of $5,700.00 was presented the check cashing company had been in contact with Talcott getting his verbal approval for cashing a check. As a result, Any Kind Check Cashed Inc. satisfied the good faith prerequisites for a holder in due course. In reviewing if, the tellers actions where in accordance with good faith and acted reasonable within the commercial standards for accepting and processing the check. The fact is that the clerk did take action and question the intent of the check of $10,000.00 by calling the maker of the check Mr. Talcott, but was not able to reach him.
The Term Paper on Lender Liability And The Duty Of Good Faith
Lender Liability and the Duty of Good Faith. Introduction From time to time, lenders and their attorneys announce that lender liability is no longer an issue with which the lending community needs to be concerned. What usually prompts this proclamation of the death of lender liability is a recent case in which a court has summarily rejected a borrower's claim that the lender violated the duty of ...
As a result of not reaching Mr. Talcott the, the supervisor relied on her judgment and experience to make her decision to cash the check. Using her judgment coupled with appeared to be evidence the FedEx envelope showing that the FedEx was sent from Mr. Talcott the supervisor was acting in good faith but not in accordance with a the reasonable commercial code. There should have been some level of suspicion that someone would pay a 500.00 fee to cash a check and not go to his or her bank and collect the full amount of the 10,000.00. To a reasonable person this type of behaviour may raise a red flag as to the desperation of the person (payee) to cash such a large check.
The check cashing store should have verified with the issuing bank to ensure that there was enough monies in the account to cover the check and verify that the check is good (no stop payment was issued).
When Mr. Guarino presented a second check to the check cashing store for $5,700.00, the store reached out and spoke with Mr. Talcott asking him to verify the check for $5,700.00, which he verified. The check cashing store never mentioned the first check of $10,000.00. Perhaps they presumed that since Mr, Talcott approved the second check that and never said anything about the first one being of issue it may have seemed as a nonissue. If Any Kind processed the $10,000 check with proper caution and procedures beyond making a phone call and not getting an answer from the maker of the check.
Any Kind should have contacted the bank the check was drawn on to verify that there was no issue with the check and not rely on experience and a FedEx cover. In order to ensure that they and preserved their status of the holder in due course status. The courts determined that Any Kind was not the holder in due course due to the manner in which they did not ensure that the check was valid before cashing and processing it. I agree with the court’s decision in finding that Any Kind is not the HDC for the $10,000.00 since they were really negligent in the handling and processing of the check. I agree, with the court’s ruling in favour that Any Kind is the HDC for the $5,700.0. Since ‘Any Kind’handled the process in good faith and within accordance with reasonable commercial standards according to the UCC 3-419[3] (Legale .com).
The Business plan on Guillermo Furniture Store Recommendation
Guillermo’s Furniture is small size furniture store with a low capital income and a simple business structure located in Sonora, Mexico (“Guillermo Store Scenario,” 2012). The furniture store was the only manufacturer in the area before the ninety’s, when a new competitor from overseas entered in the furniture market with a hi-tech approach, and woke up the community of Sonora, ...
References
Cornell Law: Uniform Commercial Code. Retrieved Dec 30, 2014.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-419
“Federal Reserve Bank: Regulation and compliance guide.” Federalreserve.gov. Retrieved Dec. 28, 2014. http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/reglisting.htm
ANY KIND CHECKS CASHED, INC. v. TALCOTT | Leagle.com. (n.d.).
Retrieved from http://www.leagle.com/decision/2002990830So2d160_1973.xml_br Twomey, D., & Jennings, M. (2014).
Kinds of Instruments, Parties, and Negotiability. Business Law: Principles For Today’s Commercial Environment (4th edition ed., pp. 567- 568).
Mason: Cengage learning.
