Manuel sued Patricia on a promissory note. Patricia admitted signing the note, but raised the defense that Manuel was not a holder in due course. Can Manuel recover without proving that he is a holder in due course? waiter or waitress who was less than six feet tall. Because of this, he had 17 waiters and no waitresses working at the restaurant. Lucinda, a woman less than six feet tall, applied for a job as a waitress and was not hired. Later, she learned that a man who was over six feet in height was hired to fill the position. After a few inquiries, she learned of Tom's height requirements and alleged that she was the victim of illegal discrimination. Decide.

Question

Houston Duran

Business

12 December, 23:24

Manuel sued Patricia on a promissory note. Patricia admitted signing the note, but raised the defense that Manuel was not a holder in due course. Can Manuel recover without proving that he is a holder in due course? waiter or waitress who was less than six feet tall. Because of this, he had 17 waiters and no waitresses working at the restaurant. Lucinda, a woman less than six feet tall, applied for a job as a waitress and was not hired. Later, she learned that a man who was over six feet in height was hired to fill the position. After a few inquiries, she learned of Tom's height requirements and alleged that she was the victim of illegal discrimination. Decide.

+2

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Presley Lynch · Answer 1

Base on the scenario been described in the question, yes of cause, Manuel was the holder and Patricia agreed that she signed the note. For this reason, Manuel has the right to recover the note unless Patricia established another defense. Since no defense was given, it was not useful whether Manuel was a holder in due course, against whom certain defenses could not be given.