[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



I actually had a class on bank transactions in law school called "Commercial Paper," but I can't remember all the rules. It seems like if you had actually followed through with the transaction (sent the guy the go-kart and $4500), that you would have qualified as what is known as a "holder in due course" (HDC). As a HDC, you would only be subject to certain defenses after the bank paid you. A good lawyer might have been able to keep the bank from recovering the money back from you.




[/ QUOTE ]


I think forgeries count as a "real" defense and therefore usable even against a holder in due course. I know material alternations and fraud in the factum are both real defenses, and forgeries should fall into at least one of those categories

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what my bar review outline says:

"The general rule is that payment of a negotiable instrument to an HDC or one who in good faith changed her position in reliance on payment is final -- i.e. the payor cannot recover payment back from the party paid. There are 2 exceptions to the general rule: The payor can recover from the party paid if (i) that party neither took for value nor in good faith, nor detrimentally relied on the payment or (ii) the party paid breached a transfer warranty or a presentment warranty. [UCC 3-418]"

Transfer warranties are
(1) good title
(2) no alterations
(3) all signatures genuine/authorized
(4) no defenses
(5) no knowledge of insovency of proceedings

I can't find it, but I think the presentment warranty is just a warranty of no forged indorsements.

So, if the check wasn't altered or forged (was written on a legitimate bank account in Nigeria with no funds in it), then it looks like the OP would qualify as an HDC who has been finally paid and hasn't breached any warranties.

In any event, the banks should be warning customers about checks or money orders from foreign countries because they are in the best position to stop this stuff.