Which of the following was the result in Michael J. Kane, Jr. v. Grace Kroll, the case in the text in which the defendant issued a check to the plaintiff to cover the plaintiff's sale of cows to the defendant's son, but later stopped payment on the check because her son said he could not repay her?

A) The plaintiff was not allowed to recover because the stop payment order prevented the plaintiff from being a holder in due course.
B) The plaintiff was not allowed to recover because, although he was a holder in due course, the stop payment order negated his entitlement to payment.
C) The plaintiff was not allowed to recover because the defendant established a lack of consideration to her.
D) The plaintiff was allowed to recover on a contract theory although he was not a holder in due course.
E) The plaintiff was allowed to recover because he was a holder in due course.

Question

Kyniajua Coleman · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : E, Explanation :  The plaintiff was allowed to recover because he was a holder in due course, which means he took the check for value, in good faith, and without notice of any defect or claim against it, thus entitling him to enforce the check despite the stop payment order.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions