Compare the UCC version of the holder in due course doctrine with the holder in due course provision in Massachusetts.
The regulation is about a person entitled to enforce instrument but legality to possess in due course depend on when the instrument was issued. Authenticity is sought to guarantee liability taking into account what led to a person be in possession of the instrument. Reasons in Massachusetts provision are evaluated in relation to value, intention and issues surrounding issuance of notice. Notice sets forth legality of possession and due understanding of implications attached to obligation to own. This differs with UCC version because it is only effective when notice is given as per the accordance set forth in regard to time, manner and opportunity to act.
How is the latter similar or different from the UCC provision?
The latter is similar on what qualifies value and it directs that the holder is verified by transactions limiting the status. In addition, the holder is subject to security claims, performance value, claim of possession and amount payable as per the value of the instrument. The issue of authenticity is vital to single out forgery claims thus capitalizing on value, intention and processes that made possession possible.
Compare Illinois version to that of the UCC.
Illinois version puts emphasis on holder of the instrument, non-holder who has a right to possess and a person not in possession but has a right to decide on pursuant. This version makes it clear that a person can be liable for wrongful use even when not in possession of the instrument. UCC version analyzes instrument possession on value, intension and legality of notice to possess. In addition, distinction is drawn on grounds of process followed during transfer of the instrument to another party.
How is Illinois’ doctrine similar or different from the UCC provision?
Illinois’ doctrine is similar to UCC provision because in both instrument possession is determined on the basis of value, intension and notice to guarantee transfer. In addition, they both set forth characteristics that justify the motive of transfer and justification governing transfer of instrument from one party to another.
Order Unique Answer Now