Will Cosmetics International Ltd Be Succeeding Essay

will not pay their entire loan in 10 years as planned, their interest money rises as well adding

as the receiver and sent a letter to the defendant’s bank demanding payment, which was

If Seller fails to comply with this contract for any other reason, Seller will be in default and Buyer may, as Buyer's sole and exclusive remedy, terminate this contract and receive from Seller the deposit, thereby releasing both parties from the contract.

associated with the Original Debt in the amount of $3 million remained unamortized as of

But both cases are different as in the first case the third party knew of the restrictions placed on the agent but since the principal did not object to it, the agent was held out as having the authority to receive payments. In the second case, the third party were unaware of any restrictions placed on the agent by the principal and also, it was thought that ordering goods was under the usual authority of the manager. In both the above cases the principal was held responsible and could be sued for damages. But both the above cases can be contradicted by the case British Bata Shoe Co Ltd V Double M Shah Ltd 1980 SC 311, where the pursuers were the principal, the cashier was the agent and the defenders were the third party. The pursuers had supplied goods to the defender, who had made payment to the pursuer’s cashier, who had no authority to receive payment. The cashier asked for the payee’s name to be left blank on the cheque, and he later stole the cheque and cashed it for himself. The pursuer sued for payment for the goods and the defender claimed they had been paid for. Even though the cashier had ostensible authority to receive payments, when the cashier asked for the payee’s name to be left blank, the defender should have suspected something was wrong and should have checked whether the cashier had the authority. Hence, in this

7. Failing to pay on time and being able to claim discounts for prompt payment

In my opinion, the alternatives which the bank can pursue include, firstly, filing a claim with

Royal Insurance Company, Ltd, the issue of holder in due course arises. Federal Credit Union had a check deposited into their bank by a member for the amount of $12,000. This check at the time was of deposit was in dispute but not known to the depositor nor the Credit Union. Royal Insurance Company issued a stop payment on the check the same date that it was deposited. Immediately upon receiving the check the credit union deposited it and forwarded it to Morgan Guaranty for payment. Morgan Guaranty is the bank used by Royal Insurance and the check was payable through them. The definition of Holder in Due Course is “a holder who takes an instrument for value, in good faith, and without notice that it is defective or overdue” (Cheeseman, 2013). The payee or bearer in this case deposited the check or negotiable instrument into the credit union. The credit union would fall under the holder in due course according to doctrine. There was at that time no evidence of forgery, alterations, or irregularity upon presentation of the check to the credit union. In this case the Credit Union wins. According to the HDC doctrine and the requirements for holder in due course the bank is owed the money that was deposited by the maker or drawer of the check. The UCC requirement for taking without notice of defect requirement stipulates that “ a person cannot qualify as an HDC if he or she has notice that the instrument is defective in certain

For those long overdue outstanding that are not eligible for any financial assistance, after ample time of calling up the financial contact of the clients, sending out statement of the accounts and reminder letters, if the financial contact still failed to make payment for the outstanding, the cases will be refer to the debt collection agency. The successful debt recovery rate is high resulting in reduces of bad debts.

When one party receives a check and transfers it, is the transferee a holder in due course? The response to this question is it depends on the facts and circumstances. The assumption and implication of good faith play a role in determining a holder in due course. In our case, one party is attempting to take advantage of the other through fraud and deceit. This paper explores who is a holder in due course, the influence of fraud and deceit, the role of the stop payment, and who is responsible when a situation goes wrong.

Nonetheless ADR also has its disadvantages, according to Fiss “ADR implicitly asks us to assume a rough equality between the contending parties”, but notes that in truth settlement “is also a function of the resources available to each party to finance the litigation, and those resources are frequently distributed unequally”, here Fiss argues that the ADR process does not measure the unequal nature of the parties and that in some cases this inequality may bring about

“Agreement” means this Settlement and Release Agreement including its Definitions, Recitals, Undertakings, Representations and Warranties, and Terms and Conditions.

To determine the proportion of allowable amount on a customer, the company checks the number of days the debt has been pending before payment. Equally, financial conditions of the customers, macroeconomic factors and the weighted-average risk trend trends are considered.

In the article “Consideration - in Acceptance of Contract”， this support Robert’s (2015) evidence that if an act is performed then a subsequent promise to pay by reference to that act is not enforceable as the consideration was past. Other that, he also noted that if there was an implication; the past promise to pay is enforceable.

7.Payment of Money only:- There must be a promise to pay only money and not other consideration, e.g. “I promise to pay B a sum of Rs. 50,000 and deliver him my Scorpio Car’’ is not valid.