Question

Now suppose that the school Durbin attended closed down before he could finish his education. In court, Durbin argues that this resulted in a failure of consideration: he did not get something of value in exchange for his promise to pay. Assuming that the government is a holder of the promissory note, will this argument likely be successful against it? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Answer:

No, Durbin owes the government. Durbin signed a promissory note with his bank and then defaulted, so the bank collected the money from the government and it became the holder in due course. Durbin did receive consideration, he received money that he paid to the school.

The document signed by Durbin complies with all the requirements necessary for a valid negotiable instrument:

• It is an unconditional order to pay
• It involves an specific amount of money
• It is written and signed
• The note is made to the bearer

The facts are simple, Durbin signed a valid negotiable instrument and is liable for it. Probably Durbin's best shot is to sue the school and try to recover damages form it. Even if the school closed or declared bankruptcy, Durbin can still try to collect money form them.