Lawdibles :: CALI Podcasts

Lawdibles: Your Audio Law Professor. A law professor explaining a narrow area of law understandably and accurately in less than ten minutes.

Lawdibles :: CALI Podcasts

Payment Systems: Who is a Holder in Due Course

September 11th, 2017 · Comments Off on Payment Systems: Who is a Holder in Due Course · Lawdibles Audio, Negotiable Instruments

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is who is a holder in due course, how someone becomes a holder in due course, and why it’s important. This podcast will explain the distinction between the process of becoming a holder and a holder in due course. Like other podcasts in the Payment Systems series, this one also deals with instruments, typically paper checks and promissory notes. While we might not use instruments frequently, checks and promissory notes are still used in many transactions, particularly larger ones. Not only is this a practice issue, but holders in due course are covered in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is tested by a number of states on the bar examination. Holders, particularly when coupled with holders in due course doctrine, are favorites on bar examinations. It is important to try and use the correct terminology so be on the lookout for the following: holder, negotiation, holder in due course, value, good faith, and notice. At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to (1) describe who is a holder; (2) describe how a person becomes a holder in due course; and (3) explain why it’s important.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

Share

Tags:·····

Payment Systems: Instruments Signed for Accommodation

September 11th, 2017 · Comments Off on Payment Systems: Instruments Signed for Accommodation · Lawdibles Audio, Negotiable Instruments

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the obligations and rights of accommodation parties and accommodated parties under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), including issues that arise with respect to the settlement of the obligation of the primary obligor. Guarantee transactions present themselves frequently in practice and, because issues can arise under Article 3, the issue sometimes comes up on the bar examination in terms of liability. The primary code provisions covered in this podcast are §§ 3-419 and 3-605. Important terminology will also be discussed. At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to (1) describe who are the parties when there is an accommodation; and (2) describe when an accommodation party will have liability on an instrument, particularly when there is a settlement.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

Share

Tags:·····

Payment Systems: Fiduciary Duty and Liability of Representatives

September 11th, 2017 · Comments Off on Payment Systems: Fiduciary Duty and Liability of Representatives · Lawdibles Audio, Negotiable Instruments

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is: (1) when a person that takes an instrument from a fiduciary has notice of the breach of fiduciary duty; and (2) when a representative is bound individually on an instrument. This podcast covers the rules of §§ 3-307 and 3-402. These topics are often covered on exam questions. At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to (1) identify who are represented persons and fiduciaries; (2) determine when a taker of an instrument has notice of a breach of fiduciary duty and a claim of the represented person; and (3) determine when a representative will have personal liability on the instrument that they sign in their representative capacity.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

Share

Tags:·····

Payment Systems: Effect of the Instrument on the Underlying Obligation

September 11th, 2017 · Comments Off on Payment Systems: Effect of the Instrument on the Underlying Obligation · All Posts, Lawdibles Audio, Negotiable Instruments

The topic of this podcast, by Professor Jennifer Martin, is the relationship between the liability that parties have on an underlying contractual obligation and an instrument that is taken as payment for the same obligation, including using an instrument to achieve an accord and satisfaction as to a contractual dispute. For example, an individual enters into a contract for a large item such as a car and takes out a loan for payment, signing a promissory note. Similarly, an individual might contract to purchase routine goods and services, but be dissatisfied with the performance and want to write a check for an amount less than the total owed as an accord and satisfaction of the dispute. This podcast will focus on rules §§ 3-310-311. At the conclusion of this podcasts you should be able to (1) describe the effect on the underlying obligation when an obligee takes an instrument as payment; and (2) identify when there is an accord and satisfaction obtained by using an instrument.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

Share

Tags:······

Payment Systems: Negotiable Instruments Vocabulary

September 11th, 2017 · Comments Off on Payment Systems: Negotiable Instruments Vocabulary · Lawdibles Audio, Negotiable Instruments

In this podcast Professor Jennifer Martin introduces you to the different basic vocabulary and parties you may see when considering a negotiable instrument under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Article 3 is tested on a number of bar examinations. It is always important to correctly identify the transaction and its parties when considering an instrument. An understanding of the basic vocabulary and parties will help you not only use the correct terminology, but also to understand the role of the parties. This podcast will introduce the following terminology: instrument, draft, order, note, promise, check, promissory note, cashier’s check, teller’s check, money order, drawer, drawee, payee, issuer, remitter, maker, instrument, bearer, holder, indorser, and negotiate. At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to (1) identify some of the vocabulary ordinarily associated with instruments under Article 3; and (2) identify how they may come up in transactions.

A transcript for this podcast is here.

Share

Tags:···

Payment Systems: Fraudulent Signatures, Alterations and Negligence

September 11th, 2017 · Comments Off on Payment Systems: Fraudulent Signatures, Alterations and Negligence · Lawdibles Audio, Negotiable Instruments

In this podcast Professor Jennifer Martin addresses the liability that arises when there is a fraudulent signature on an instrument, as well as the effect of alterations and negligence. These rules are covered in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is tested in a number of states on the bar exam. At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to (1) describe when a signature is sufficient to make a person liable on instrument; (2) describe how Article 3 treats responsibility for alterations; and (3) describe when the failure to exercise ordinary care will shift responsibility on the grounds of negligence to an account holder.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

Share

Tags:····

Payment Systems: Employer Responsibility

September 11th, 2017 · Comments Off on Payment Systems: Employer Responsibility · Lawdibles Audio, Negotiable Instruments

In this podcast, Professor Jennifer Martin addresses three situations where employers have responsibility for employee fraud related to instruments: (1) where there is a fraudulent indorsement on an instrument either sent to the employer or issued by the employer; (2) where the employee has fraudulently caused the issuance of instruments by the employer; and (3) where the employer has been negligent. This topic also deals with instruments, typically paper checks and promissory notes. While consumers and businesses don’t use paper checks as much as they did in the past, these are often large value instruments and fraud remains a problem. Not only is this a practice issue, but the employer rules are covered in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is tested by a number of states on the bar examination. These loss shifting rules are favorites on bar exams. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify when the employer responsibility for fraudulent indorsements, fictitious payees and negligence rules leave responsibility for losses on employers.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

Share

Tags:······

Payment Systems: Imposters and Fictitious Payees

September 11th, 2017 · Comments Off on Payment Systems: Imposters and Fictitious Payees · Lawdibles Audio, Negotiable Instruments

The topic of this podcast, by Professor Jennifer Martin, is who has responsibility for losses involving imposters and fictitious payees. This topic deals with instruments, typically paper checks and promissory notes. Most individuals don’t use paper checks very often, but checks and promissory notes are still used in many transactions, particularly larger ones. Moreover, financial fraud remains a problem. Not only is this a practice issue, but imposters and fictitious payees are covered in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is tested by a number of states on the bar examination. These loss shifting rules are favorites on bar exams. The primary rule at play here is 3-404. It is important to try and use the correct terminology so in this podcast be on the lookout for the following: imposter, issuer, indorsement, payee, fictitious persons, person whose intent determines to whom an instrument is payable, holder, indorsement, and person entitled to enforce (or sometimes called a PETE). At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to identify when the imposter and fictitious payee rules apply to leave responsibility of losses on issuers and account holders.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

Share

Tags:·····

Payment Systems: Holders

September 11th, 2017 · Comments Off on Payment Systems: Holders · Lawdibles Audio, Negotiable Instruments

In this podcast, Professor Jennifer Martin explains who a holder is, how someone becomes a holder, and why it is important. This topic deals with instruments, typically paper checks and promissory notes. While we might not use instruments frequently, checks and promissory notes are still used in many transactions, particularly larger ones. Moreover, financial fraud remains a problem for attorneys who might be the victim of it themselves or need to counsel clients with respect to enforcement of an instrument. Not only is this a practice issue, but holders are covered in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is tested by a number of states on the bar examination. Holders, particularly when coupled with holders in due course doctrine, are favorites on the bar exam. At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to (1) describe what a holder is; (2) describe how a person becomes a holder and why it is important.

A transcript of this podcast is here.

Share

Tags:···

Payment Systems: Indorsements

September 7th, 2017 · Comments Off on Payment Systems: Indorsements · Lawdibles Audio, Negotiable Instruments

This podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin explains what an indorsement is, the different types of indorsements and why they can be important.  Indorsements are covered in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is tested by a number of states on the bar examination. At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to (1) identify the different types of indorsements and describe how to use them; and (2) explain the reason why indorsements are important.

A transcript of the podcast is here.

Share

Tags:····