Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Yang V CA
Yang V CA
Yang V CA
CA
No. 138074. 15 August 2003
Facts:
-
That he took it in good faith and for value; (4) That at the time it was
negotiated to him, he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument
or defect of the title of the person negotiating it.
- Yang contends that (3) and (4) are missing because there was
lack of proof to show that David tendered any valuable
consideration for the checks; and Davids lack of action to
inquire how Prem got the instruments show intentional
ignorance tantamount to bad faith. But Yang was wrong.
[Sec. 24 NIL]: Presumption of consideration. Every
negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have
been issued for valuable consideration; and every
person whose signature appears thereon to have
become a party thereto, for value. Hence, David is
presumed to have given valuable consideration for the
checks since he did not receive the checks for free,
paying Prem $360,000.
Yang also failed to show why David needed to know why
or how Prem got the checks. David was not privy to the
the transaction between Yang and Prem, since Prem and
David had a separate dealing where Prem had the duty
to deliver the checks to David. Prem performed that
task.
In other words, Yang should have filed against Prem and
not David. Lol.