Case Scenario:
David was concerned about his brother-in-law, Gerald. Gerald lost his job over two years ago, and he was not trying very hard to find a new job. David decided to help Gerald out when Gerald could not meet his mortgage last month. Sarah, Gerald's wife and David's sister, had been trying to make the monthly payments. However, last month, Sarah told David that she just did not have the money. David did not want to see Gerald and Sarah lose their home. Therefore, he gave them the payment, $2,200, in cash. In return, Gerald gave David a postdated check for this month. Gerald and Sarah assured David that David could deposit the check because sufficient funds were available. Instead, David signed the check over to Dan whom David owed $2,200 for personal services. When Dan presented the check to the drawee bank, the bank refused to cash it due to insufficient funds. Dan claimed that David still owed him the $2,200. David refused to pay claiming this was improper because he was protected as a holder in due course.
Is David correct? If so, what are his defenses?
Will Dan be successful? Discuss why or why not.