Talk:Holder in due course

Removed AfD tag
I removed the AfD tag because I think that holder in due course is a sufficiently important topic in the law of negotiable instruments (itself an important topic in commercial law) to justify its own article. If it is to be considered for deletion, it should go through the formal AfD process, but my own view is that it would not be appropriate for deletion at all. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify - not saying that this article is good - far too stubby and limited in geographical focus; not accessible to lay people. But still sufficiently notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Defects in the TV"
In the text, "The latter would assert that it is an HDC and therefore not responsible for any defects in the TV or for any misrepresentations about it that the retailer made to the consumer. (A car is a bad SI example because liens are indicated on title, not by a separate SI.)" it's not really clear what "TV" stands for...

GregBlock (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Example is wrong.
The last line in the first P. reads, But it should say: since it was A who was originally obligated. I will change. But please change back if you have a qualm with this. If you change back, please provide explanation. Piratejosh85 (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "B may then sue A for non-performance, but is still obligated to pay the original obligation to C."
 * "A may then sue B for non-performance, but is still obligated to pay the original obligation to C."

I disagree
I think that the recent edit that shortens the example makes it too curt, and cuts out useful information. Unless anyone objects in the next day, I'm going to undo. Piratejosh85 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since no one said anything I reverted. I think this version (pre-revision) is fuller and easier to understand. Piratejosh85 (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I just saw your comment, sorry for the delay. I think it is a fair criticism that my version was a bit too short, but I still think that the previous was too repetitive and doesn't get straight to the heart of the matter. I will propose an alternative when I get a chance. Cdecoro (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I look forward to it. First I agree that the current one could be revised to make it more concise.  The main issue I had with the revision was that the sentences were extremely complex, and inaccessable.  Specifically, there were only two sentences, but each had five sub-parts, seperated by commas.  This left the sentence fairly inaccessable.  To wit:
 * First) 1. Suppose, | 2. in exchange for a promise to perform services, | 3. A promised to pay B, | 4. who then sold the right of payment to C, | 5. who thus becomes a holder in due course.
 * Second) 1. If B subsequently fails to perform, | 2. A must nonetheless pay C, | 3. even though it could have refused, | 4. for non-performance of service, | 5. to pay B.
 * My request would be that we focus on short sentences that walk the reader through a simple example. Piratejosh85 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Requirements
virtually every commercial law text sets out a specific, concise statement of the requirements to be considered an hdc: value given, good faith, without notice, etc. this article does not. any particular reason? Toyokuni3 (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Dead Link Comment
The link in the first reference is dead.WannaBeEditor (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Page Title Not Properly Capitalized
The page title should be properly capitalized, i.e. "Holder in Due Course" rather than "Holder in due course"... but that is not a minor edit which a casual editor can make. idfubar (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but that's not really in line with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. It is often, perhaps even mostly, not capitalized. II  | (t - c) 03:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holder in due course. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121128024402/http://www.pstcc.edu/departments/lat/classes/2300/notes/chap23.htm to http://www.pstcc.edu/departments/lat/classes/2300/notes/chap23.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)