Issue
“Is the Venetian’s casino marker signed by Nehme a negotiable instrument under the Nevada Uniform Commercial Code?” (Cheeseman, 2015).
Rule Law
“According to UCC 3-104, a negotiable instrument must: (1) Be in writing. (2) Be signed by the maker or drawer. (3) Be an unconditional promise or order to pay. (4) State a fixed amount of money. (5) Not require any undertaking in addition to the payment of money. (6) Be payable on demand or at a definite time. (7) Be payable to order or to bearer.” (Cheeseman, 2015 p. 353).
Analysis
The marker is anegotiable instrument because it is signed by both parties, has a certain deadline for the payment of $499,000 which is after playtime in casino. If Nehme is unable to pay after that time, the payment must be directed either to the loaner or to the bank, whenever the loaner demanded it. Furthermore, the marker stated that what will Nehme do is just to pay the debt and there is no other additional requirement (Cheeseman, 2015). In addition to this, the court did not accept two key evidences for the defense of Nehme, and that is the main reason why the court favored the Venetian.
Conclusion
The court has made the wrong decision not to consider the two evidences. Failure to submit an affidavit to make evidences legal does not mean that the evidences presented are made up. Furthermore, the legal standards set by the law had been a hindrance from knowing the truth behind the case and delivering justice.
Bank of Colorado v. Berwick
Issue
“Is Sands an HDC against whom the personal defense of fraud in the inducement cannot be raised?”(Cheeseman, 2015)
Rule Law
“Personal defense is a defense that can be raised against an enforcement of a negotiable instrument by an ordinary holder but not against an HDC.” (Cheeseman, 2015 p.373)
Analysis
Berwick and Las Vegas Sands claimed that since The Bank of Colorado issued checks on both parties, the bank should be equally liable as well. As a result, the Bank of Colorado will not be discharged of liability, and the money will be granted to Las Vegas Sands LCC. Because Las Vegas Sands has been entitled to the check and its amount ever since from the beginning, it is a holder in due course. Unfortunately, the check was not defined as lost, so Berwick will not be entitled for the check (Cheeseman, 2015). As for Berwick, he cannot file a complaint against Sands because it is the true holder of the check. Rather, he can sue the Bank of Colorado as a personal defense.
Conclusion
With proper documentation, Las Vegas LCC has been able to recover the money from the bank. The court judged Berwick with prejudice. Due to contradictions made by The Bank of Colorado, the mistake made on the terms of issuance will not make the bank discharged of liability.
Spacemakers of America v. Suntrust Bank
Issue
“Did Spacemakers’s failure to uncover the forgeries and failure to provide SunTrust with timely notice of the forgeries bar its claim against SunTrust?” (Cheeseman, 2015).
Rule Law
“One year rule is a rule that if a drawer fails to report a forged or altered check to the bank within one year of receiving the bank statement and canceled checks containing it, the bank is relieved of any liability for paying the instrument” (Cheeseman, 2015 p. 384).
Analysis
The court favored Suntrust Bank’s motion. Spacemakers of America accused misapplication of law and wrong judgment but later retorted this claim after finding out the truth.
Jenny Triplett, a bookkeeper hired by the company, has been proven forging checks ever since the start of her employment in the company. In addition to this, Spacemakers are also unable to find the true identity of Triplett who was a two-time ex-convict. Because Spacemakers failed to uncover these facts after a year has passed, its claim against SunTrust is barred and the bank will not be liable of any loss. (Cheeseman, 2015).
Conclusion
Proper judgment will be made if all possible angles of the case have been investigated. In this case, however, Suntrust Bank took the necessary steps to track existing records to pin the real culprit. Also, accusations made by Space of America proved that the company has failed to properly manage its employees regarding these kinds of transactions.
References
Cheeseman, H. (2015). Contemporary Business Law (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.
