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
**
#267962
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 0
Ms Honey & Don

Q10

It is not the endorsee. The drawee must be named or otherwise indicated on the bill with reasonable certainty (s 4(1)), and until he signs the bill, he incurs no liability on the bill. (UNIT 2)

So... I agree with Ms Honey. It is False.

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.
 
#267978
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 18
Lourette wrote:
Ms Honey & Don

Q10

It is not the endorsee. The drawee must be named or otherwise indicated on the bill with reasonable certainty (s 4(1)), and until he signs the bill, he incurs no liability on the bill. (UNIT 2)

So... I agree with Ms Honey. It is False.

Kind Regards


Maybe I'm reading in to it too much, but if you take the question sentence afresh: generally nobody is liable on a bill without signing it, a person named on the bill should be named with reasonable certainty in any event.

This is my reasoning for the question:
True. When an endorsee signs an order, they become an endorser. Except for the transferor by delivery, only those parties who have signed the bill in one capacity or another are liable on the bill. Study guide 18. As well as section 21, BEA.
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.
 
#268499
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months ago Karma: 6
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


Hey, wrt q27 (a), The bill is payable to bearer and Michelle is in possession of the bill and no delivery has taken place (only negotiated the bill). However, Michelle is no longer the payee as she has negotiated the bill back to Alvereen. A person is not a holder by virtue of possession alone. Therefore once the bill is delivered to Alvereen, she will become holder. And since she isn’t currently the holder, she can't be the holder in due course. Please let me know your thoughts?
chrisnorm
Second Year Boarder
Posts: 105
graphgraph
Points: 468
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#268510
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months ago Karma: 18
chrisnorm wrote:

Hey, wrt q27 (a), The bill is payable to bearer and Michelle is in possession of the bill and no delivery has taken place (only negotiated the bill). However, Michelle is no longer the payee as she has negotiated the bill back to Alvereen. A person is not a holder by virtue of possession alone. Therefore once the bill is delivered to Alvereen, she will become holder. And since she isn’t currently the holder, she can't be the holder in due course. Please let me know your thoughts?


Hi Chris,

Negotiation, ito s29(1) is the transfer of a bill from one person to another in such a way as to constitute the transferee the holder of the bill. By negotiating the bill back to Alvereen, the question tells us she is now the holder (s29(1) definition)...and the definition of a holder ito s1 is defined as the payee/endorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof. It is still a bearer instrument ito s6(2) a bill is payable to bearer if it is originally payable to bearer - the SG confirms you cannot convert a bearer bill into an order bill by way of endorsement (you can the other way around though).

Does that make sense now?
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.
 
#268511
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 8 Months ago Karma: 18
I still reckon you can pass section A of the exam knowing the definitions alone, you will always get marks for giving a definition and another if you give authority (section number)...
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.
 
#268559
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 4 Weeks ago Karma: 18
Is anyone else having serious issues keeping to the prescribed assignment formatting (margins, font, spacing etc) AND not exceeding the limit of two typed pages including footnotes, excluding bibliography? Plans?
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.
 
#268562
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 4 Weeks ago Karma: 18
Case for question 5 of assignment 2:
File Attachment:
File Name: McCarthy_PDF_1-20170327.pdf
File Size: 124086
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.
 
#268569
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 4 Weeks ago Karma: 6
D0N wrote:
chrisnorm wrote:

Hey, wrt q27 (a), The bill is payable to bearer and Michelle is in possession of the bill and no delivery has taken place (only negotiated the bill). However, Michelle is no longer the payee as she has negotiated the bill back to Alvereen. A person is not a holder by virtue of possession alone. Therefore once the bill is delivered to Alvereen, she will become holder. And since she isn’t currently the holder, she can't be the holder in due course. Please let me know your thoughts?


Hi Chris,

Negotiation, ito s29(1) is the transfer of a bill from one person to another in such a way as to constitute the transferee the holder of the bill. By negotiating the bill back to Alvereen, the question tells us she is now the holder (s29(1) definition)...and the definition of a holder ito s1 is defined as the payee/endorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof. It is still a bearer instrument ito s6(2) a bill is payable to bearer if it is originally payable to bearer - the SG confirms you cannot convert a bearer bill into an order bill by way of endorsement (you can the other way around though).

Does that make sense now?


Hey Don,

Thank you for coming back to me. I hadnt considered s29(1). However i read further up on it and came across this " ``Negotiation'' means the transfer of an instrument from one person to another in such a manner as to constitute the transferee the holder of it (s 29(1)). An instrument payable to order
is negotiated by the endorsement of the holder completed by delivery (s 29(3)). By contrast, an instrument payable to bearer is negotiated by
delivery only (s 29(2))"

So in conclusion, since this is an instrument payable to bearer, negotiation is by delivery only (s29(2)), and since no delivery has taken place, Alvereen is not the holder and therefore can't be holder in due course.
chrisnorm
Second Year Boarder
Posts: 105
graphgraph
Points: 468
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#268572
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 4 Weeks ago Karma: 6
chrisnorm
Second Year Boarder
Posts: 105
graphgraph
Points: 468
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Last Edit: 2017/03/27 08:22 By chrisnorm.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#268614
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 4 Weeks ago Karma: 18
chrisnorm wrote:


Hey Don,

Thank you for coming back to me. I hadnt considered s29(1). However i read further up on it and came across this " ``Negotiation'' means the transfer of an instrument from one person to another in such a manner as to constitute the transferee the holder of it (s 29(1)). An instrument payable to order
is negotiated by the endorsement of the holder completed by delivery (s 29(3)). By contrast, an instrument payable to bearer is negotiated by
delivery only (s 29(2))"

So in conclusion, since this is an instrument payable to bearer, negotiation is by delivery only (s29(2)), and since no delivery has taken place, Alvereen is not the holder and therefore can't be holder in due course.


But by the question facts stating the the bill was negotiated back to Alvereen I am taking the literal meaning of the word negotiation, telling us that all aspects of negotiation (including delivery of a bearer instrument) have taken place...
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.
 
#269808
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 2 Weeks ago Karma: 18
Just in case anyone missed it, there were two important announcements regarding exam content...
First one:
UNISA CLAW management took a decision that the first 4 study units of Section A of the study guide as well as the entire section on other methods of payment, Section B of the study guide, will not be examinable but may still be asked in the assignments. In other words, you will not get a question in the exam asking you to define a ‘cheque’ or ‘payee’ for example, however when answering a problem type question you must be able to identify and deal with the type of cheque and the parties to the cheque. You will also have to understand whether there has been an endorsement or whether negotiation has taken place, for example.

You must therefore understand the concepts contained in units 2 - 4 in order to be able to answer problem type questions.

Second announcement amended part of the first announcement about definitions:
The exam will contain a definition question from units 2 -4 of section A. The rest of the information remains the same.

Please also note that assignment questions are also examinable.

We apologise for the confusion.


Good luck with your exam prep
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.
 
#270068
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 2 Weeks ago Karma: 0
Q1 of Ass 2: Discuss briefly the ratio of the court in Indac Electronics (Pty) Ltd v Volkskas Bank Ltd 1992 (1) SA 783 (A). You must include the necessary page and paragraph/section numbers. 5 marks.

Ratio of the court? Does this means "the reason for the decision" or is it "the dicision" or "what it means for future cases".

The question is 5 mark... is the answer the same as the "Activity 2" in unit 15?

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.
 
#270102
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: -1
Hi Lourette, yes ratio = ratio decidendi = reason(s) for the court's decision.
Activity 2 does not relate to reasons for the decision. I think the answer starts with the last sentence at the bottom of page 51 of the Indac case (long version) / para 3 on page 18 of the 19page version, starting with "On balance, the factors which I have mentioned above, in my view, operate in favour of....."
nkruger
Fresh Out of Matric
Posts: 2
graphgraph
Points: 86
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Last Edit: 2017/04/11 19:04 By nkruger.Reason: correction
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#270107
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 18
Hi, please see attached photo for crux of the case...
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.
 
#270108
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 18
Here is the version of the case that I used, it has a good summary of the case in the beginning.
File Attachment:
File Name: Case1__Indac_electronics.pdf
File Size: 2151018
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.
 
#270114
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 6
nkruger wrote:
Hi Lourette, yes ratio = ratio decidendi = reason(s) for the court's decision.
Activity 2 does not relate to reasons for the decision. I think the answer starts with the last sentence at the bottom of page 51 of the Indac case (long version) / para 3 on page 18 of the 19page version, starting with "On balance, the factors which I have mentioned above, in my view, operate in favour of....."


Hey, please can you share the case versions you worked from? I would really appreciate it! x
chrisnorm
Second Year Boarder
Posts: 105
graphgraph
Points: 468
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#270171
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 0
Thanks for the 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.
 
#270318
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 0
Helpful link:

HOW TO FIND THE RATIO DECIDENDI

survivelaw.com/index.php/blogs/study/151...-the-ratio-decidendi
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.
 
#270368
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 6
D0N wrote:
Just in case anyone missed it, there were two important announcements regarding exam content...
First one:
UNISA CLAW management took a decision that the first 4 study units of Section A of the study guide as well as the entire section on other methods of payment, Section B of the study guide, will not be examinable but may still be asked in the assignments. In other words, you will not get a question in the exam asking you to define a ‘cheque’ or ‘payee’ for example, however when answering a problem type question you must be able to identify and deal with the type of cheque and the parties to the cheque. You will also have to understand whether there has been an endorsement or whether negotiation has taken place, for example.

You must therefore understand the concepts contained in units 2 - 4 in order to be able to answer problem type questions.

Second announcement amended part of the first announcement about definitions:
The exam will contain a definition question from units 2 -4 of section A. The rest of the information remains the same.

Please also note that assignment questions are also examinable.

We apologise for the confusion.


Good luck with your exam prep


Hey, so basically we must know all the definitions from su 1-4 only?
chrisnorm
Second Year Boarder
Posts: 105
graphgraph
Points: 468
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
#270378
Re:MRL4801 -Negotiable Instruments Semester 1 2017 7 Months, 1 Week ago Karma: 18
Yip, which is pretty much that first PDF on page 1 of this thread.
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.
 
Go to topPage: 123456

Advertisement

Polls

Are you happy with Unisa's online registration process?