Ad
related to: negotiable instrument law
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In the Commonwealth of Nations almost all jurisdictions have codified the law relating to negotiable instruments in a Bills of Exchange Act, e.g. Bills of Exchange Act 1882 in the UK, Bills of Exchange Act 1890 in Canada, Bills of Exchange Act 1908 in New Zealand, Bills of Exchange Act 1909 in Australia, [2] the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in India and the Bills of Exchange Act 1914 in ...
Law pertaining to negotiable instruments. Pages in category "Negotiable instrument law" The following 26 pages are in this category, out of 26 total.
In commercial law, a holder in due course (HDC) is someone who takes a negotiable instrument in a value-for-value exchange without reason to doubt that the instrument will be paid. If the instrument is later found not to be payable as written, a holder in due course can enforce payment by the person who originated it and all previous holders ...
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an act in India dating from the British colonial rule, that is still in force with significant amendments recently. It deals with the law governing the usage of negotiable instruments in India. The word "negotiable" means transferable and an "instrument" is a document giving legal effect by the virtue of the law
The shelter rule also applies to the transfer of negotiable instruments. If the recipient of a negotiable interest is a donee (that is, a person who receives by gift), that person would generally not have the rights of a holder in due course - that is, a person who received the instrument for value and without notice of other claims. However ...
The Twelfth Edition of Business Law: Text Cases (Clarkson, Miller & Cross), says that formal contracts are, "contracts that require a special form or method of creation to be enforceable." It uses negotiable instruments as an example of formal contracts, such as: checks, drafts, promissory notes, and certificates of deposit.
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal negotiable instruments were governed by federal law, and thus the federal court had the authority to fashion a common law rule.
Blank endorsement of a financial instrument, such as a cheque, is only a signature, not indicating the payee.The effect of this is that it is payable only to the bearer – legally, it transforms an order instrument ("pay to the order of (the payee)") into a bearer instrument ("pay to the bearer").