(a) Except as stated in subsection (b), the right to enforce the obligation of a party
to pay an instrument is subject to the following:
(1) A defense of the obligor based on (i) infancy of the obligor to the extent it is a
defense to a simple contract, (ii) duress, lack of legal capacity, or illegality of
the transaction which, under other law, nullifies the obligation of the obligor, (iii)
fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable
opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms, or (iv) discharge of
the obligor in insolvency proceedings;
(2) A defense of the obligor stated in another section of this chapter or a defense of
the obligor that would be available if the person entitled to enforce the instrument
were enforcing a right to payment under a simple contract; and
(3) A claim in recoupment of the obligor against the original payee of the instrument
if the claim arose from the transaction that gave rise to the instrument; but the
claim of the obligor may be asserted against a transferee of the instrument only to
reduce the amount owing on the instrument at the time the action is brought.
(b) The right of a holder in due course to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the
instrument is subject to defenses of the obligor stated in subsection (a)(1), but
is not subject to defenses of the obligor stated in subsection (a)(2) or claims in
recoupment stated in subsection (a)(3) against a person other than the holder.
(c) Except as stated in subsection (d), in an action to enforce the obligation of a party
to pay the instrument, the obligor may not assert against the person entitled to enforce
the instrument a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument (§ 6A-3-306) of another person, but the other person’s claim to the instrument may be asserted
by the obligor if the other person is joined in the action and personally asserts
the claim against the person entitled to enforce the instrument. An obligor is not
obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument
does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument
is a lost or stolen instrument.
(d) In an action to enforce the obligation of an accommodation party to pay an instrument,
the accommodation party may assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument
any defense or claim in recoupment under subsection (a) that the accommodated party
could assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument, except the defenses
of discharge in insolvency proceedings, infancy, and lack of legal capacity.
Notes of Decisions
Rhode Island Depositors Econ. Prot. Corp. v. Ryan, 697 A.2d 1087 (R.I. 1997).
“We are of the opinion that the same circumstances under which a maker of a note would be liable to a regular holder in due course under § 6A-3-305 should apply to DEPCO. That is to say, the public policy *1094 underlying the creation of DEPCO is better served by extending to…”
In Re DiMartino, 108 B.R. 394 (D.R.I. 1989).
“Laws § 6A-3-408 (1985), states in relevant part that "[w]ant or failure of consideration is a defense as against any person not having the rights of a holder in due course (§ 6A-3-305), . . . Partial failure of consideration is a defense pro tanto whether or not the failure is…”
850 Aquidneck Avenue Assocs. v. Aquidneck Court Assocs. (In re DiMartino), 97 B.R. 139 (D.R.I. 1989).
“LAWS § 6A-3-408 (1956, reenactment 1985), entitled “Consideration,” states in relevant part that “[w]ant or failure of consideration is a defense as against any person not having the rights of a holder in due course (§ 6A-3-305)_ Partial failure of consideration is a defense pro…”
850 Aquidneck Avenue Assocs. v. Aquidneck Court Assocs. (In re DiMartino), 108 B.R. 394 (D.R.I. 1989).
“Laws § 6A-3-408 (1985), states in relevant part that “[wjant or failure of consideration is a defense as against any person not having the rights of a holder in due course (§ 6A-3-305), ... Partial failure of consideration is a defense pro tanto whether or not the failure is in…”
In Re DiMartino, 97 B.R. 139 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1989).
“LAWS § 6A-3-408 (1956, reenactment 1985), entitled "Consideration," states in relevant part that "[w]ant or failure of consideration is a defense as against any person not having the rights of a holder in due course (§ 6A-3-305). . . . Partial failure of consideration is a…”
Panteleakis v. Kalams, 659 F. Supp. 212 (D.R.I. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Laws (1985 Reenactment) § 6A-3-305(2) and subject to certain exceptions enumerated therein, one who acquires an instrument as a holder in due course takes free from all defenses of any party to the instrument with whom the holder has not dealt.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-3-305(2) — 1 case
Panteleakis v. Kalams, 659 F. Supp. 212 (D.R.I. 1987).
“Laws (1985 Reenactment) § 6A-3-305(2) and subject to certain exceptions enumerated therein, one who acquires an instrument as a holder in due course takes free from all defenses of any party to the instrument with whom the holder has not dealt.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-3-305(2)(b) — 1 case
Panteleakis v. Kalams, 659 F. Supp. 212 (D.R.I. 1987).
“Laws (1985 Reenactment) § 6A-3-305(2) and subject to certain exceptions enumerated therein, one who acquires an instrument as a holder in due course takes free from all defenses of any party to the instrument with whom the holder has not dealt.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-3-305(2)(c) — 1 case
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.