StudyNotesWiki

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Forum
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
Go to bottomPage: 123456
TOPIC: MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017
**
#267720
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 10
Ms Honey
Honours Student Boarder
Posts: 384
graphgraph
Points: 1554
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Last Edit: 2017/03/15 07:40 By Ms Honey.
I am not in competition with anyone else. I run my own race. I have no desire of playing the game of being better than anyone else around me, in any way, shape or form. I just aim to improve, to become a better person than i was. Thats me...
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267756
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 18
Hi Ms Honey,

Q3 is quite literally a cut and paste of the bold sentence on page 6...
D0N
Third Year Boarder
Posts: 232
graphgraph
Points: 798
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Lucky 8 ball
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267776
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 10
D0N wrote:
Hi Ms Honey,

Q3 is quite literally a cut and paste of the bold sentence on page 6...


you are correct i must have been drunk and didn't notice
Ms Honey
Honours Student Boarder
Posts: 384
graphgraph
Points: 1554
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
I am not in competition with anyone else. I run my own race. I have no desire of playing the game of being better than anyone else around me, in any way, shape or form. I just aim to improve, to become a better person than i was. Thats me...
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267779
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 0
I disagree… Q3 is true… “Or am I having a total blond moment”

Yes, you cannot transfer a better title to another person than the title one has oneself… so,,,, the statement is true…
If the statement said you can… it would off been false.

QUESTION 3

It is a basic principle in our law that one cannot transfer a better title to another person than the title one has oneself.
TRUE
UNIT 1; 4.2: It is a basic principle in our law that one cannot transfer a better title to another person than the title one has oneself.

Dit is ʼn basiese beginsel in ons reg dat iemand nie ʼn beter titel aan ʼn ander persoon kan oordra as wat daardie een self het nie.
WAAR
Dit is ʼn basiese beginsel in ons reg dat mens nie ʼn beter titel aan iemand ander kan oordra as wat mens self het nie.
Lourette
Second Semester Boarder
Posts: 43
graphgraph
Points: 408
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267788
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 0
??? 23 ????

Please Please help!!

I'm confused. I thought Q23 should be 4, but I see most said number 2?
Why 2, I found what a bearer cheque is, but do not understand why said answer is "bearer cheque" and not "non-transferable cheque".

Maybe because it is written with hand.... I just do not know... I am confused...

Please HELP!
Lourette
Second Semester Boarder
Posts: 43
graphgraph
Points: 408
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267801
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 12
Hi Don,

So if the words "OR a bearer" was included in the question you would have answered TRUE?

Without going into semantics to much, if this is the case then I am going to leave my answer as TRUE, because of the fact that it is OR and not AND. The fact that you say "or" means that the three mentioned in the question remains essential parties and the same would apply if they then replaced payee with bearer in the question. If we use the word "AND" then there must be 4 essential parties and not three. So semantically, the three parties mentioned in the question is essential, irrespective if they stated payee opposed to bearer.

Am I misinterpreting you response?

Regards,
Nino
ninohe
Second Year Boarder
Posts: 93
graphgraph
Points: 358
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Influences of law on ICT in South Africa: ictjurist.canblog.co.za
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267802
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 12
Hi Kirstenle,

I saw that as well. I did however wanted something more concrete in my explanation on why only promissory notes is an instrument of investment in the three given options. Also, it should be 116 and not 166. Now that I read my explanation again, I think I will add page 4. Thank you for highlighting this.

Regards,
Nino
ninohe
Second Year Boarder
Posts: 93
graphgraph
Points: 358
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Last Edit: 2017/03/15 11:50 By ninohe.
Influences of law on ICT in South Africa: ictjurist.canblog.co.za
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267804
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 12
Lourette,

Sorry I don't have all my notes with me, but maybe look at the difference between not-negotiable and not-transferable. Basically, the first being that the cheque can not be negotiated, but it may still be transferable. I looked at the characteristics and elements of all the options and option 2 is the only option that fits in the scenario (in my opinion).

Nino
ninohe
Second Year Boarder
Posts: 93
graphgraph
Points: 358
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Influences of law on ICT in South Africa: ictjurist.canblog.co.za
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267810
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 10
Lourette wrote:
??? 23 ????

Please Please help!!

I'm confused. I thought Q23 should be 4, but I see most said number 2?
Why 2, I found what a bearer cheque is, but do not understand why said answer is "bearer cheque" and not "non-transferable cheque".

Maybe because it is written with hand.... I just do not know... I am confused...

Please HELP!


I agree with 2

Option (1) is INCORRECT. Section 6(2) of the Act states that “a bill is payable to bearer if it is expressed to be so payable, or if the only or last indorsement on it is an indorsement in blank, or if it is expressed to be payable to the order of 'cash' or to 'cash or order'”. This cheque is payable to “Lesego Selemale”.
Option (2) is CORRECT. Section 6(3) of the Act states that: “a bill is payable to order if it is expressed to be so payable, or if it is expressed to be payable to a particular person and does not contain words prohibiting transfer or indicating an intention that it should not be transferable.” This cheque was payable to a specified person, namely Lesego Selemale. Options (3) and (4) are INCORRECT because this cheque is still transferable. Option (5) is INCORRECT because this cheque is still negotiable. See paragraph 3 on pages 12-13 as well as paragraph 2.8 on pages 28-29
Ms Honey
Honours Student Boarder
Posts: 384
graphgraph
Points: 1554
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Last Edit: 2017/03/15 13:27 By Ms Honey.
I am not in competition with anyone else. I run my own race. I have no desire of playing the game of being better than anyone else around me, in any way, shape or form. I just aim to improve, to become a better person than i was. Thats me...
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267812
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 10
Lourette wrote:
I disagree… Q3 is true… “Or am I having a total blond moment”

Yes, you cannot transfer a better title to another person than the title one has oneself… so,,,, the statement is true…
If the statement said you can… it would off been false.

QUESTION 3

It is a basic principle in our law that one cannot transfer a better title to another person than the title one has oneself.
TRUE
UNIT 1; 4.2: It is a basic principle in our law that one cannot transfer a better title to another person than the title one has oneself.

Dit is ʼn basiese beginsel in ons reg dat iemand nie ʼn beter titel aan ʼn ander persoon kan oordra as wat daardie een self het nie.
WAAR
Dit is ʼn basiese beginsel in ons reg dat mens nie ʼn beter titel aan iemand ander kan oordra as wat mens self het nie.




It is True.... My blonde moment
Ms Honey
Honours Student Boarder
Posts: 384
graphgraph
Points: 1554
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
I am not in competition with anyone else. I run my own race. I have no desire of playing the game of being better than anyone else around me, in any way, shape or form. I just aim to improve, to become a better person than i was. Thats me...
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267857
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 18
ninohe wrote:
Hi Don,

So if the words "OR a bearer" was included in the question you would have answered TRUE?

Without going into semantics to much, if this is the case then I am going to leave my answer as TRUE, because of the fact that it is OR and not AND. The fact that you say "or" means that the three mentioned in the question remains essential parties and the same would apply if they then replaced payee with bearer in the question. If we use the word "AND" then there must be 4 essential parties and not three. So semantically, the three parties mentioned in the question is essential, irrespective if they stated payee opposed to bearer.

Am I misinterpreting you response?

Regards,
Nino


If "OR a bearer" was included I would have been more inclined to say TRUE, but my main distinguishing feature here is that I think the essential parties are:

- the person who gives the order
- the person to whom the order is addressed
- the person to whom payment must be made

and the brackets are examples of these parties (the drawer, the drawee, the payee or bearer), which is probably better explained if you see in light of the fact that the person to whom payment must be made can be one of two people - a payee or bearer.
D0N
Third Year Boarder
Posts: 232
graphgraph
Points: 798
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Lucky 8 ball
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267858
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 18
Ms Honey wrote:
D0N wrote:
Hi Ms Honey,

Q3 is quite literally a cut and paste of the bold sentence on page 6...


you are correct i must have been drunk and didn't notice


So I'm NOT the only one with this study technique
D0N
Third Year Boarder
Posts: 232
graphgraph
Points: 798
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Lucky 8 ball
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267860
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 18
ninohe wrote:
Lourette,

Sorry I don't have all my notes with me, but maybe look at the difference between not-negotiable and not-transferable. Basically, the first being that the cheque can not be negotiated, but it may still be transferable. I looked at the characteristics and elements of all the options and option 2 is the only option that fits in the scenario (in my opinion).

Nino


Spot on Ninohe, fully agree.

Lourette I think your confusion was because of the distinction Ninohe mentioned above. See p137:

Section81
By crossing a cheque and adding the words “ not negotiable”, not only the provisions of section 80 come into operation but also certain rights are conferred upon the true owner of it by section 81. Although a cheque is primarily an instrument of payment which is rarely negotiated, it is nevertheless a negotiable and transferable document..........

HINT: I often print out (or tear out) the contents pages at the beginning of a study guide and use it as the briefest summary ever with a few sections of legislation added next to each line, it helps me distinguish between things that I might miss if I'm enveloped in the main part of the guide trying to process a couple hundred pages.
D0N
Third Year Boarder
Posts: 232
graphgraph
Points: 798
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Last Edit: 2017/03/15 23:04 By D0N.
Lucky 8 ball
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267936
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 12
Don,

I agree with you, but I'm not convinced that the answer is FALSE.

They name 3 parties, which is correct, ie. none of the parties are excluded. I don't think that the fact that they left out the other parties makes the false, but I am pondering if whether it is completely TRUE. If we should give cognisance to other recipients (payee or bearer) then you are 100% correct and the answer should be FALSE. However, the 3 parties mentioned still makes the "equation" TRUE.
Example:
BMW, TOYOTA, FORD and MERCEDES are cars! --> 4 parties
BMW, FORD and MERCEDES are cars! --> Does this mean the remaining 3 parties are not cars because we left out 1?

Maybe a poor example, but I'm on the border with this, because both arguments have grounds for correctness, I just don't know which is MORE CORRECT.

Regards,
Nino
ninohe
Second Year Boarder
Posts: 93
graphgraph
Points: 358
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Influences of law on ICT in South Africa: ictjurist.canblog.co.za
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267942
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 18
ninohe wrote:
Don,

I agree with you, but I'm not convinced that the answer is FALSE.

They name 3 parties, which is correct, ie. none of the parties are excluded. I don't think that the fact that they left out the other parties makes the false, but I am pondering if whether it is completely TRUE. If we should give cognisance to other recipients (payee or bearer) then you are 100% correct and the answer should be FALSE. However, the 3 parties mentioned still makes the "equation" TRUE.
Example:
BMW, TOYOTA, FORD and MERCEDES are cars! --> 4 parties
BMW, FORD and MERCEDES are cars! --> Does this mean the remaining 3 parties are not cars because we left out 1?

Maybe a poor example, but I'm on the border with this, because both arguments have grounds for correctness, I just don't know which is MORE CORRECT.

Regards,
Nino


I see what you're saying, I'm also on the fence now The word "essential" is my last straw, is a payee essential, or can it be a bearer? If the instructions said choose the option that is MOST correct, I would go TRUE. But it doesn't, and I really don't want to lose a mark...decisions decisions...
D0N
Third Year Boarder
Posts: 232
graphgraph
Points: 798
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Lucky 8 ball
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267944
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 18
So I started a past exam last night, May June 2016, several questions are very similar to our assignment questions, but with minor changes. Like changing bearer to order, and drawees from X and Y to "X or Y" ... so these little details will need to be scouted for very carefully to avoid us simply regurgitating an assignment answer in the exam and not realising the changes.

That said, it's not going as bad as I thought. I think it would be silly not to concentrate on Copyright, IP and Comp, even more than negotiable instruments, in order to get most of your marks there...
D0N
Third Year Boarder
Posts: 232
graphgraph
Points: 798
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Lucky 8 ball
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267952
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 10
ninohe wrote:
Don,

I agree with you, but I'm not convinced that the answer is FALSE.

They name 3 parties, which is correct, ie. none of the parties are excluded. I don't think that the fact that they left out the other parties makes the false, but I am pondering if whether it is completely TRUE. If we should give cognisance to other recipients (payee or bearer) then you are 100% correct and the answer should be FALSE. However, the 3 parties mentioned still makes the "equation" TRUE.
Example:
BMW, TOYOTA, FORD and MERCEDES are cars! --> 4 parties
BMW, FORD and MERCEDES are cars! --> Does this mean the remaining 3 parties are not cars because we left out 1?

Maybe a poor example, but I'm on the border with this, because both arguments have grounds for correctness, I just don't know which is MORE CORRECT.

Regards,
Nino


Which question are you referring to question 7?

I believe that it is True page 15, 4.2
Ms Honey
Honours Student Boarder
Posts: 384
graphgraph
Points: 1554
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Last Edit: 2017/03/17 08:10 By Ms Honey.
I am not in competition with anyone else. I run my own race. I have no desire of playing the game of being better than anyone else around me, in any way, shape or form. I just aim to improve, to become a better person than i was. Thats me...
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267955
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 0
Don & Ninohe

Thank you for the feedback on Q23.

Regarding Q7:
I read both, Don & Ninohe opinions. I understand the argument, and both have very good opinions. To be truthful... you made me rather confused, I went through the answer again.

Don, I can understand why you thought falls. Your argument makes sense...

But, my first opinion on the answer was True, and I still think True is the most applicable. So I’m going with True.

Kind Regards
Lourette
Second Semester Boarder
Posts: 43
graphgraph
Points: 408
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267959
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 10
D0N wrote:
My answers for comment:
1) F 6) F 11) T 16) T 21) 3
2) T 7) F 12) F 17) T 22) 4
3) T 8) T 13) T 18) T 23) 2
4) F 9) F 14) T 19) T 24) 3
5) F 10) T 15) T 20) F 25) 4

26) Valid bill of exchange and broke down almost every detail in the illustration.
27a) Bill payable to bearer, reasons, yes can be a holder a due course if all the requirements are met.
27b) No not entitled to enforce payment. reasons -s35 BEA


Wouldn't 10} be False because its the payee and not the endorsee?
Ms Honey
Honours Student Boarder
Posts: 384
graphgraph
Points: 1554
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
I am not in competition with anyone else. I run my own race. I have no desire of playing the game of being better than anyone else around me, in any way, shape or form. I just aim to improve, to become a better person than i was. Thats me...
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#267961
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 0
Q26:

Ninohe stated:
“ Relates to the 8 essential elements (unit 3), as well as quick overview of non-essential elements.”
Don stated:
“ Valid bill of exchange and broke down almost every detail in the illustration.”

I said this is not a Valid bill of exchange. I broke down all the elements. Some elements were missing, and that makes it invalid - s2(2).
Lourette
Second Semester Boarder
Posts: 43
graphgraph
Points: 408
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
Go to topPage: 123456

Advertisement

Polls

Are you happy with Unisa's online registration process?