Response to LK
I am pleased with how LK thinks about this case. According to him, Mr. Nicholson will not get a refund of his money. He is right at arguing that the check was received by the bank in good faith and did not know of any doings. It is true that the check was deemed a negotiable instrument. This means that the check guaranteed payment of the amount specified either on demand or at a set time with the payer specified on the document. There was no condition specified in the check. As such the check can be transferred to a third party and it’s only the holder of the check that is ultimately paid y the payer on the check (Cornell University Law School, 2014). LK is right when he notes that the Holder in Due Course doctrine has protected the bank as far as there was good faith in the dealings. Mr. Nicholson needs to investigate the issue further by taking a legal action.
Response to SP
S P has offered to explain the case using Ponzi schemes, fraudulent investment operations. However, I feel that such operations do not exactly compare to what is happening in this case. On the other hand, S P is right when he states that the bank acted as it should have. Just as LK, SP feels that the check is a negotiable instrument that is unconditional, and that the back satisfied its obligations. SP has gone on to note instances that the bank could refund the money such as if it had violated the UCC codes. In this case, we are not told whether Kittinger forged Nicholson’s signature. It is important to note that FTC has listed several tips about scams like this that people like Nicholson should read (Mann, 1996).