When John Deere, however, presented the check to the bank for payment shortly thereafter, the bank refused to pay, claiming that Duester acquired the cashier’s check by theft. Is John Deere subject to this defense? Why or why not?

Jump to Solution
Category:

When John Deere, however, presented the check to the bank for payment shortly thereafter, the bank refused to pay, claiming that Duester acquired the cashier’s check by theft. Is John Deere subject to this defense? Why or why not?

0
0

Walter Duester purchased a John Deere combine from St. Paul Equipment. John Deere Co. was the lender and secured party under the agreement. The combine was pledged as collateral. Duester defaulted on his debt, and the manager of St. Paul, Hansen, was instructed to repossess the combine. Hansen went to Duester’s farm to accomplish this. Duester told him that he had received some payments for custom combining and would immediately purchase a cashier’s check to pay the John Deere debt. Hansen followed Duester to the defendant, Boelus State Bank. Hansen remained outside, and Duester returned in a few minutes with a cashier’s check in the amount of the balance of his indebtedness payable to John Deere. The check had been signed by an authorized bank employee. When John Deere, however, presented the check to the bank for payment shortly thereafter, the bank refused to pay, claiming that Duester acquired the cashier’s check by theft. Is John Deere subject to this defense? Why or why not?

Explanation & AnswerSolution by a verified expert

Explanation

Object JD took the instrument for value, for the payment of debt, in good faith, without being aware of the argument or defense existing against the instrument. It grants Object JD the status of a holder in due course. The defense of Individual A against Object JD, which is that of the theft of cashier's check, is personal in nature. No defenses that are personal in nature are valid against a holder in due course. If Individual H had any other valid defenses against Object JD or if Object JD had lost the position of a holder in due course, Object JD would then have been liable to Individual H.

Sample Response

Object JD is not subject to the defense since it is a holder in due course. The defense by Individual H is useless here since it is personal in nature. If Object JD was not a holder in due course, the defense of theft of the cashier's check would have been valid against Object JD.

Purchase this answer to view it. $5
Login/Sign up for free, load your wallet instantly using PayPal or cards and purchase this solution to view it.

Looking for the solution to this or another homework question?

If you need essay writing assistance or homework solutions, log in or sign up for a free account and ask our writers any homework question.