Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 106 views

    Cla 2602

    Uploaded by

    mario
    The document discusses various questions regarding liability on forged or stolen cheques under the Bills of Exchange Act. For question 1, it finds that Lesego would not be liable as the forged signature is inoperative and provides no rights. For question 2, Fanie is not liable to Maphuti due to the exception in section 53(2)(b) for prior endorsements. For question 7, the thief David is not liable as he did not place his own signature on the cheque, only forging another's signature. The summary briefly outlines the key conclusions regarding liability for each question.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cla 2602

    Uploaded by

    mario
    106 views2 pages
    The document discusses various questions regarding liability on forged or stolen cheques under the Bills of Exchange Act. For question 1, it finds that Lesego would not be liable as the forged signature is inoperative and provides no rights. For question 2, Fanie is not liable to Maphuti due to the exception in section 53(2)(b) for prior endorsements. For question 7, the thief David is not liable as he did not place his own signature on the cheque, only forging another's signature. The summary briefly outlines the key conclusions regarding liability for each question.

    Original Description:

    Further more information on CLA2602

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses various questions regarding liability on forged or stolen cheques under the Bills of Exchange Act. For question 1, it finds that Lesego would not be liable as the forged signature is inoperative and provides no rights. For question 2, Fanie is not liable to Maphuti due to the exception in section 53(2)(b) for prior endorsements. For question 7, the thief David is not liable as he did not place his own signature on the cheque, only forging another's signature. The summary briefly outlines the key conclusions regarding liability for each question.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    106 views2 pages

    Cla 2602

    Uploaded by

    mario
    The document discusses various questions regarding liability on forged or stolen cheques under the Bills of Exchange Act. For question 1, it finds that Lesego would not be liable as the forged signature is inoperative and provides no rights. For question 2, Fanie is not liable to Maphuti due to the exception in section 53(2)(b) for prior endorsements. For question 7, the thief David is not liable as he did not place his own signature on the cheque, only forging another's signature. The summary briefly outlines the key conclusions regarding liability for each question.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Question

    1. Lesego signature is wholly inoperative entails that no right to retain


    or give a discharge for the cheque.
    2. No, Fanie will not be liable to Maphuti
    3. Fanie is protected section 53(2)(b) exception Fanie a right against
    previous indorse. Fanie is an indorse by estoppel.
    4. In terms of section 22. Allie will be liabe because the forged
    signature is wholly inoperative
    5. B-bank In terms of section 22, B-Bank will not be liable because of
    the forged signature is wholly inoperative. No right to enforce
    payment against any party can be acquired through the forged
    signature.
    6. In terms of section 21, no one can be held liable as drawer, indorser
    or acceptor unless he or she had signed the bill. Lesego did not
    place any signature on the cheque and is accordingly not liable.
    Section 51 also provides that the drawer is not liable on a bill unless
    he has accept it.
    7. David the thief To be liable on the cheque. David the theft must
    have placed his own signature on the cheque. The theft was never a
    party of the cheque. The thief forged his signature; he did not place
    his own signature on the cheque. Therefore, David is not liable in
    terms of the cheque
    8. I am really not sure about this question, Please help with the answer
    to FANIE and Maphuti
    9. I think I am confuses.

    1.2 No, Chrizell will not be a holder in due course; you have to list or
    met all the eight requirement to the cheque for being a holder in
    due course, and must be the first of all be a holder. As this is a
    bearer cheque anyone can be in possession.

    The person must be a holder


    The holder must have taken the cheque in good faith(Latin:
    bona fide)
    The holder must have given value for the cheque
    The cheque must have been negotiated to the holder.

    I should I indicate the definition of a cheque to this question


    1.3.1 No, David is not the holder of the cheque. The true owner of
    the cheque is Jopie

    1.3.4

    B-Bank, the drawee Bank paid under circumstance which, in terms


    of the BEA, do not make the bank liable against the true owner

    S Bank apply the principles and acted in good faith without


    negligence, and therefore it cannot be held liable

    In terms of section 81:

    The cheque was crossed and marked not negotiable

    The cheque was stolen while it was crossed and marked as above

    The plaintiff is the true owner

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy