For this week's discussion, post a response to the following case study:
During this week you studied the topic of holders in due course. Where this topic tends to get a bit tricky is when the note/instrument in obtained in a fraudulent way and then passes to an innocent third party. When a party is a holder in due course and acquires the instrument for value, in good faith, and without knowledge that there were any defenses or claims against it, they will be entitled to payment under the instrument. For this discussion board discuss at least 2 scenarios in which a note would be void and not honored? Why would they not be honored? Is it fair that a faulty note could still be honored even if fraud was involved? Why or why not?