Nancy Mahar was the office manager at Golden Years Nursing Home, Inc. She was given a signature stamp to issue checks to the nursing home's employees for up to $\$ 500$ as advances on their pay. The checks were drawn on Golden Years' account at First National Bank. Over a seven-year period, Mahar wrote a number of checks to employees exclusively for the purpose of embezzling funds for herself. She forged the employees' indorsements on the checks, signed her name as a second indorser, and deposited the checks in her personal account at Star Bank. The employees whose names were on the checks never actually requested them. When the scheme was uncovered, Golden Years filed a suit against Mahar, Star Bank, and others to recover the funds. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.

Based on these facts, describe any transfer or presentment warranties that Mahar may have violated.

. Under the UCC, which party, Golden Years or Star Bank, must bear the loss in this situation? Why?

What is the rule set forth by that provision?

Nancy Mahar was the office manager at Golden Years Nursing Home, Inc. She was given a signature stamp to issue checks to the nursing home's employees for up to $\$ 500$ as advances on their pay. The checks were drawn on Golden Years' account at First National Bank. Over a seven-year period, Mahar wrote a number of checks to employees exclusively for the purpose of embezzling funds for herself. She forged the employees' indorsements on the checks, signed her name as a second indorser, and deposited the checks in her personal account at Star Bank. The employees whose names were on the checks never actually requested them. When the scheme was uncovered, Golden Years filed a suit against Mahar, Star Bank, and others to recover the funds. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.

With regard to signature liability, which provision of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) discussed in this chapter applies to this scenario?

With regard to signature liability, which provision of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) discussed in this chapter applies to this scenario?

Michael Scotto borrowed $\$2,970$ from Cindy Vinueza. Both of their signatures appeared at the bottom of a note. The note stated, “I Michael Scotto owe Cindy Vinueza $\$2,970$ (two thousand and nine-hundred & seventy dollars) & agree to pay her back in full. Signed on this 26th day of September 2009.” More than a year later, Vinueza filed a suit against Scotto to recover on the note. Scotto admitted that he had borrowed the funds, but he contended—without proof—that he had paid Vinueza in full. Is this note negotiable? Which party is likely to prevail? Why? [Vinueza v. Scotto, 30 Misc.3d 1229, 924 N.Y.S.2d 312 (1 Dist. 2011)] (See Requirements for Negotiability.)

. For the government to be a holder, which method must have been used to transfer the instrument from the bank to the government?

Suppose that the note did not state a specific interest rate but instead referred to a statute that established the maximum interest rate for government-guaranteed student loans. Would the note fail to meet the requirements for negotiability in that situation? Why or why not?

Negotiability. Michael Scotto borrowed $\$2,970$ from Cindy Vinueza. Both of their signatures appeared at the bottom of a note. The note stated, "I Michael Scotto owe Cindy Vinueza $\$2,970$ (two thousand and nine-hundred & seventy dollars) & agree to pay her back in full. Signed on this $26$th day of September $2009$." More than a year later, Vinueza filed a suit against Scotto to recover on the note. Scotto admitted that he had borrowed the funds, but he contended-without proof-that he had paid Vinueza in full. Is this note negotiable? Which party is likely to prevail? Why?

Using the categories discussed in the chapter, what type of negotiable instrument was the note that Durbin signed (an order to pay or a promise to pay)? Explain.

Michael Scotto borrowed $2,970$ dollars from Cindy Vinueza. Both of their signatures appeared at the bottom of a note that stated, "I Michael Scotto owe Cindy Vinueza $2,970$ dollars (two thousand and nine-hundred & seventy dollars) & agree to pay her back in full. Signed on this $26$th day of September $2009$." More than a year later, Vinueza filed a suit against Scotto to recover on the note. Scotto admitted that he had borrowed the funds, but he contended-without proof-that he had paid Vinueza in full. Is this note negotiable? Which party is likely to prevail? Why?

Negotiability. Juan Sanchez writes the following note on the back of an envelope: "I, Juan Sanchez, promise to pay Kathy Martin or bearer $\$ 500$ on demand." Is this a negotiable instrument? Discuss fully.

Negotiable Instruments. Sabrina Runyan writes the following note on a sheet of paper: "I, the undersigned, do hereby acknowledge that I owe Leo Woo one thousand dollars, with interest, payable out of the proceeds of the sale of my horse, Lightning, next month. Payment is to be made on or before six months from date." Discuss specifically why this is not a negotiable instrument.

Suppose that, in court, Durbin argues that because the school closed down before he could finish his education, there was a failure of consideration: he did not get something of value in exchange for his promise to pay. Assuming that the government is a holder of the promissory note, would this argument likely be successful against it? Why or why not?