Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 440 / Act 174 of 1962
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3413 (2026)

Draft; obligation to pay according to terms; amount.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.3413 Draft; obligation to pay according to terms; amount.

Sec. 3413.

    (1)  The acceptor of a draft is obliged to pay the draft (i) according to its terms at the time it was accepted, even though the acceptance states that the draft is payable "as originally drawn" or equivalent terms, (ii) if the acceptance varies the terms of the draft, according to the terms of the draft as varied, or (iii) if the acceptance is of a draft that is an incomplete instrument, according to its terms when completed, to the extent stated in sections 3115 and 3407. The obligation is owed to a person entitled to enforce the draft or to the drawer or an endorser who paid the draft under section 3414 or 3415.

    (2) If the certification of a check or other acceptance of a draft states the amount certified or accepted, the obligation of the acceptor is that amount. If (i) the certification or acceptance does not state an amount, (ii) the amount of the instrument is subsequently raised, and (iii) the instrument is then negotiated to a holder in due course, the obligation of the acceptor is the amount of the instrument at the time it was taken by the holder in due course.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 130, Eff. Sept. 30, 1993

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1967–1992 · leading case: Dep't of Treasury v. Bank of Commonwealth, 314 N.W.2d 688 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dep't of Treasury v. Bank of Commonwealth, 314 N.W.2d 688 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “MCL 440.3413(1); MSA 19.3413(1). Although the bank accepted the check by issuing it, that acceptance never became effective since it was never completed by delivery or notification.”
Henderson Glass, Inc. v. Remes Glass, Inc. (In Re Remes Glass, Inc.), 136 B.R. 132 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1992). “MCL 440.3413(1); MSA 19.3413(1). Although the bank accepted the check by issuing it, that acceptance never became effective since it was never completed by delivery or notification.”
Duncan v. Baskin, 154 N.W.2d 617 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). “The drawer of a check engages that upon dishonor and any necessary notice of dishonor or protest he will pay the amount of the check, PA 1962, No 174, §3413 (CL 1948, § 440.3413' [Stat Ann 1964 Eev § 19.3413]), but there is no statutory provision for the implied representation…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3413(1) — 2 cases
Dep't of Treasury v. Bank of Commonwealth, 314 N.W.2d 688 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “MCL 440.3413(1); MSA 19.3413(1). Although the bank accepted the check by issuing it, that acceptance never became effective since it was never completed by delivery or notification.”
Henderson Glass, Inc. v. Remes Glass, Inc. (In Re Remes Glass, Inc.), 136 B.R. 132 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1992). “MCL 440.3413(1); MSA 19.3413(1). Although the bank accepted the check by issuing it, that acceptance never became effective since it was never completed by delivery or notification.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3413(2) — 1 case
Dep't of Treasury v. Bank of Commonwealth, 314 N.W.2d 688 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “MCL 440.3413(1); MSA 19.3413(1). Although the bank accepted the check by issuing it, that acceptance never became effective since it was never completed by delivery or notification.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.