Defenses. One day, while Ort, a farmer, was working alone in his ...

[tuffie]

Defenses. One day, while Ort, a farmer, was working alone in his field, a stranger approached him. The stranger said he was the state agent for a manufacturer of iron posts and wire fence. The two men conversed for some time, and eventually the stranger persuaded the farmer to accept a township-wide agency for the same manufacturer. The stranger then completed two documents for Ort to sign, telling Ort that they were identical copies of an agency agreement. Because the farmer did not have his glasses with him and could read only with great difficulty, he asked the stranger to read what the document said. The stranger then purported to read the document to Ort, not mentioning that it was a promissory note. Both men signed each document, the farmer assuming that he was signing a document of agency. The stranger later negotiated the promissory note that he had fraudulently obtained from Ort to an HDC. When the HDC brought suit against the farmer, the farmer attempted to defend on the basis of fraud in the execution. Did Ort succeed in the real defense of fraud? Explain.

Question 2

The National Environment Policy Act was passed to enhance and preserve the environment. Which of the following is not true?
 a. The act applies to all federal agencies.
  b. The act requires that an environmental impact statement be provided if any proposed federal legislation may significantly affect the environment.
  c. Enforcement of the act is primarily accomplished by litigation of persons who decide to challenge federal government decisions.
  d. The act provides generous tax breaks to those companies that help accomplish national environmental policy.

[blakcmamba]

Answer to Question 1

Defenses
In this classic case concerning the defense of fraud in the execution, the Kansas court en-tertained three possible views. One was that since Ort never intended to execute a note, he should not be held liable for the act. A second view is that the jury should decide, as a question of fact, whether Ort was guilty of negligence under the circumstances. The third view was that since Ort possessed all of his faculties and was able to read the English language, signing a promissory note solely in reliance on a stranger's assurance that it is a different instrument constitutes negligence. This was the view adopted by the court, which held that Ort's negligence had contributed to the fraud and that such negligence precluded Ort from raising fraud as a defense against payment on the note. Today, UCC 3-305(a)(1)(iii) of the revised Article 3 encompasses the court's analysis. UCC 3-305(a)(1)(iii) states that fraud in the execution is only a real defense providing that the injured party signed the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms.

Answer to Question 2

.D

[tuffie]

Wow, this really help

[ricroger]

Gracias!