Chapter 27 Flashcards
Universal (Real) Defenses
A defense that is valid against all holders of a negotiable instrument, including holders in due course (HDCs) and holders with the rights of HDCs. Used to avoid payment to all holders.
What are the universal defenses?
- Forgery of a signature on the instrument.
- Fraud in the execution.
- Material alteration.
- Discharge in bankruptcy.
- Minority.
- Illegality, mental incapacity, or duress (when the instrument is void).
Forgery of Maker or Drawer Signature.
i.) a person’s name is signed by another without permission
ii) an agent signs an instrument without authority
Forgery is a universal defense unless…
The Drawer or Maker was negligent when issuing the instrument or if the Drawer or Maker ratifies the signature, Drawer or Maker will be liable
Under what circumstance would forgery be used against you?
Negligence…leaving yourself open to forgery
Fraud in execution
Not ordinary fraud. You are signing an instrument believing it to be something else.
Russian immigrant went to dealership. Buying car on credit. The Russian does not read any English, but can speak enough. Signs an agreement that was not was discussed – he was taken advantage of.
Fraud in execution
Material alteration is a…
- Complete defense against holders
- Partial defense against HDCs (good to original terms)
Alteration is analyzed twice
under HDC and again when HDC is trying to collect on it.
Personal (Limited) Defenses
Used to avoid payment to holders, but HDC will collect on the instrument
What are personal defenses?
- Breach of contract or breach of warranty.
- Lack or failure of consideration.
- Fraud in the inducement (ordinary fraud).
- Illegality, mental incapacity, or duress (when the instrument is voidable)
- Previous payment or cancellation (discharge)
- Unauthorized completion of an incomplete instrument
- Nondelivery of the instrument
Lack of failure of consideration
- No consideration, no enforceable promise
- Delivery of goods is truly impossible
Should you write a check in pencil?
NO!
Elias purchases two dozen pairs of athletic shoes from De Soto. The shoes are to be delivered in six weeks. Elias gives De Soto a promissory note for $1,000, which is the price of the shoes. The shoes arrive, but many of them are discolored, and the soles of several pairs are coming apart. Elias has a defense to liability on the note on the basis of breach of contract and breach of warranty. (A seller impliedly promises that the goods being sold are at least merchantable.)
If, however, the note is no longer in the hands of the payee-seller (De Soto) but is presented for payment by an HDC, the result is different.
The maker-buyer (Elias) in that situation will not be able to plead breach of contract or breach of warranty as a defense against liability on the note.
Tony gives Cleo, as a gift, a note that states, “I promise to pay you $100,000,” and Cleo accepts the note.
No consideration is given in return for Tony’s promise, and a court will not enforce the promise.
New Houston Gold Exchange, Inc. (HGE), issued a $3,500 postdated check to Shelly McKee as payment for a purportedly genuine Rolex watch. McKee indorsed the check and presented it to RR Maloan Investments, Inc., a check-cashing service. RR Maloan cashed the check. Meanwhile, HGE issued a stop-payment order on the check based on information that the watch was counterfeit.
When RR Maloan presented the check to HGE’s bank for payment, the bank refused to honor it. HGE claimed that RR Maloan was not a holder in due course because of McKee’s fraud in selling an allegedly fake Rolex. RR Maloan filed a suit in a Texas state court against HGE to recover the funds, asserting that it was an HDC entitled to collect on the check.
Ultimately, a state appellate court found that McKee’s alleged fraud toward HGE did not prevent RR Maloan from obtaining the status of an HDC. The check-cashing service took the check in good faith and for fair value, unaware of McKee’s alleged fraud in inducing HGE to issue the check. Therefore, RR Maloan was entitled to payment on the check.
The federal government limits the rights of HDCs in certain circumstances because of the harsh effects that the HDC rules can sometimes have on consumers.
Under the HDC doctrine, a consumer who purchased a defective product (such as a defective automobile) would continue to be liable to HDCs even if the consumer returned the defective product to the retailer.
To buy a used truck with a one-year warranty, Brian pays $5,000 down and signs a promissory note to the dealer for the remaining $15,000. The truck turns out to be defective, and Brian returns it to the dealer, but the dealer has already sold the note to an HDC.
Under the HDC doctrine, Brian would remain liable to the HDC for $15,000 in this situation because his claim of breach of warranty is a personal defense, not a universal defense.
To protect consumers who purchase defective products, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) adopted Rule 433, which effectively abolished the HDC doctrine in consumer transactions.
FTC Rule 433 severely limits the rights of HDCs that purchase instruments arising out of consumer credit transactions. The rule applies to consumers who purchase goods or services for personal, family, or household use using a consumer credit contract. The regulation prevents a consumer from being required to make payment for a defective product to a third party HDC who has acquired a promissory note that formed part of the consumer’s contract with the dealer who sold the defective good.
NOTICE
ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.
FTC Rule 433 Required Provision
Analyzing HDC scenarios:
- Determine if the holder is just an ordinary holder or a HDC.
- When the HDC/holder attempts to collect on the instrument, the next question is what defense is raised by the party required to pay?
- What classification of defenses does that defense fit in?
- If the defense is personal: HDC collects full amount of the instrument.
Holder does NOT collect anything.
If the defense is real/universal: even an HDC will NOT collect (unless material alteration is the defense).
Two Types of Liability with Negotiable Instruments:
- Signature Liability.
- Warranty Liability.