DSpace Repository

Forgeries and Double Forgeries Under Articles 3 and 4 of the UCC

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Palizzi, Anthony N.
dc.date.accessioned 2010-04-21T14:46:20Z
dc.date.available 2010-04-21T14:46:20Z
dc.date.issued 1969
dc.identifier.citation 42 S. Cal. L Rev. 659 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10601/642
dc.description.abstract Remedies available to a person or bank which has taken on a forged instrument, as well as to a drawee bank which has paid that instrument, are dependent to a large extent upon the status of the party receiving the instrument in the first instance. The technical classifications of those in possession of commercial paper, and particularly the definition of a "holder in due course," must be derived from various Sections of the Uniform Commercial Code, the interdependence of which may not be readily apparent. This article will attempt to reconcile these apparently inconsistent Sections of the Code, as they relate to double forgeries, in terms of the broad policy considerations underlying the negotiability of instruments and the allocation of loss among parties to an action involving such instruments. en_US
dc.publisher Southern California Law Review
dc.relation.uri http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/scal42&collection=journals&id=665&men_hide=false&men_tab=citnav
dc.subject Forged instrument en_US
dc.subject Holder in due course en_US
dc.subject Uniform Commercial Code en_US
dc.subject Double forgeries en_US
dc.title Forgeries and Double Forgeries Under Articles 3 and 4 of the UCC en_US
dc.type Article en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record