Chapter

Reports of the Death of the Holder in Due Course Doctrine Are Greatly Exaggerated

James Steven Rogers

in The End of Negotiable Instruments

Published in print December 2011 | ISBN: 9780199856220
Published online January 2012 | e-ISBN: 9780199919574 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199856220.003.0004
Reports of the Death of the Holder in Due Course Doctrine Are Greatly Exaggerated

Show Summary Details

Preview

Under the holder in due course doctrine, a person who bought goods on credit might have to pay, even though the goods were defective, if the note had been transferred from the seller to a financer who qualified as a holder in due course. By the late twentieth century, disputes over that doctrine had been largely resolved in favor of consumer buyers. Yet the holder in due course doctrine continues to apply in some settings, such as mortgage finance and business cases. In fact, the problem is that the entire holder in due course doctrine is an anachronism. This chapter discusses the bizarre interpretive approaches that courts still use to avoid applying the statutory rules. The chapter concludes that the current statute on promissory actually compels courts to consider seriously whether, in a particular, case, application of the holder in due course doctrine is justified.

Keywords: negotiable instrument; check; promissory note; holder in due course; consumer protection; mortgages; anachronism

Chapter.  8416 words. 

Subjects: Company and Commercial Law

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.