Joined: 10 Mar 2010
Online Status: Offline Posts: 77
Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 17:32 | IP Logged
Under the Negotiable Instruments Article of the UCC, when an instrument is endorsed "Pay to John Doe" and signed by "Faye Smith", which of the following statements is (are)correct?
1)Payment of the instrument is guaranteed. 2) The instrument can be further negotiated.
Corrected answer: Yes. Yes.
I am a little confused. Why 2) is right? Isn't John Doe's signature missing? I thought if special endorsement names a specific party ( John Doe), further negotiation requires the signature of the specific party and delivery.
Joined: 04 Nov 2009 Location: India
Online Status: Offline Posts: 25
Posted: 03 Apr 2010 at 22:42 | IP Logged
If John Doe does not get paid than Faye Smith does as reverse chain works so it could guaranteed.
when an instrument is endorsed "Pay to John Doe" and signed by "Faye Smith means further signature of John Doe is required to negotiate to others. It can not be transfered until John Doe signs.
2)Answer Yes, The instrument can be further negotiated as nothing from back could destroy negotiable instrument.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Topic: negotialbe question
Topic Closed)
