Part 1 – Holder in Due Course
Joe Craftsman had a bank account with Wells Fargo. On November 8, Craftsman received a check for $18,500 from [Restaurant Name] as payment for construction work done at the restaurant to bring it up to the county code requirements. Craftsman deposited the check at Wells Fargo on November 9 and was permitted to draw the funds up to November 12. Craftsman wrote checks totaling $9,500, which Wells Fargo cleared. On November 12, [Restaurant Name] stopped payment on the check as a result of a contract dispute over the modifications at the restaurant. Craftsman's account was then overdrawn once the check was denied clearance by [Restaurant Name’s] bank. Wells Fargo brought suit against both Craftsman and [Restaurant Name] to collect its loss. [Restaurant Name] counterclaims against Craftsman for breach of contract on the restaurant modifications. Wells Fargo maintained that it had given value and was a holder in due course and, as such, it was not required to be subject to the contract dispute or stop payment order.
-Justify the validity of the claims made by each party. Determine which party should win the case and provide support for your choice.
Part 2 - Recommendations
-Conclude your paper by justifying suggestions for [Restaurant Name] to help prevent future occurrences of these types of legal problems and ethical issues, if applicable. Be specific in your recommendations.
-Support your answers with appropriate research, reasoning, cases, laws, and other relevant examples.