[ad_1]
A holder in due time is someone who possesses a negotiable security in good faith, and is often not held responsible for any claims against the instrument. However, there are legal implications and the law varies between countries. To be a holder in due time, value must be exchanged for the instrument. The concept has been misused in the past, but purchasers can now be held liable in certain circumstances. The law surrounding negotiable instruments differs from property law.
A due time holder is someone who has taken possession of a negotiable security in good faith. The timely holder is often held innocent of any claims against the negotiable instrument and previous holders because he or she was not notified of any problems with the instrument. There are some major legal implications behind this concept and it has been the subject of litigation in some cases. The law surrounding the transfer of negotiable instruments varies between countries and cases, and people who are unclear about the specifics of a particular situation may wish to consult a lawyer.
To be considered a holder in due time, someone must trade some kind of value for the tradable instrument. In a simple example of how this might work, a consumer might get a residential mortgage from a bank. The bank in turn could sell the loan to another bank. The new bank becomes its owner in due course because it has exchanged something of value for the mortgage. He is now the rightful owner of the mortgage and can sue the debtor in his own name if the debtor defaults or fails to meet the terms of the mortgage.
A historical problem with the concept of the holder in due time is that it has sometimes been misused. Initially, people were absolved of any responsibility for the negotiable instrument when they could demonstrate that they obtained it in good faith and were unaware of any problems. This was used by unscrupulous individuals who would do things like take out a loan on a bad car and then turn around and sell the loan. The debtor has no legal recourse because the holder in due course may refuse to provide support or services, claiming that he does not know the circumstances. This practice has been challenged as unfair, and there are now certain circumstances in which a purchaser of negotiable security can be held liable for the previous owner’s tort.
It is important to note that the law surrounding negotiable instruments differs from the law surrounding property. If someone buys a negotiable instrument in good faith, they are the rightful owner, whether or not there is a problem with the instrument, such as a claim against it. On the other hand, someone who acquires property with an unclear title, such as a stolen person, may do so in good faith but does not retain ownership of the property once the problem is discovered.
[ad_2]