Thomas stole two signed cashier's checks from a loan officer's desk at Chase Lincoln First Bank. Thomas wrote $200,000 as the amount of one check and $300,000 as the amount of the other and made them payable to the order of his brother-in-law. Posing as his brother-in-law, Thomas presented the checks to the Tropicana Casino. A casino employee contacted Chase and was told that the $200,000 check was "good," that there were adequate funds to cover it, and that there was not a stop-payment order on the $300,000 check. Thomas gambled away most of the money before Chase stopped payment on the checks. Tropicana sued the bank to recover the $500,000. Tropicana claimed that it had taken the checks in good faith and was a holder in due course. The court most likely held that Tropicana was
a.a holder in due course, because it showed good faith by having the casino employee contact Chase before taking the checks.
b.a holder in due course, because the checks were properly indorsed.
c.not a holder in due course, because the checks were fraudulent on their face.
d.not a holder in due course, because casinos operate under stricter rules than other businesses, and Tropicana failed to follow the rules for a casino.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is the answer a? The casino is definitely a holder in due course
a.a holder in due course, because it showed good faith by having the casino employee contact Chase before taking the checks.
b.a holder in due course, because the checks were properly indorsed.
c.not a holder in due course, because the checks were fraudulent on their face.
d.not a holder in due course, because casinos operate under stricter rules than other businesses, and Tropicana failed to follow the rules for a casino.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is the answer a? The casino is definitely a holder in due course