Legal definition of sui juris?
sui ju·ris -ˈjur-is, -ˈyü-rēs.
1. : having full legal capacity to act on one’s own behalf : not subject to the authority of another.
2. : qualified to enjoy full rights of citizenship (as of holding public office or serving on a jury)
Below is a sample endorsement that could be written on a bill of exchange. This example includes the necessary details to make a proper endorsement.
Endorsement:
Pay to: [Name of the Endorsee]
Address: [Endorsee’s Address]
Date: [Date of Endorsement]
For value received, I hereby endorse and transfer all rights and interests in the above-mentioned bill of exchange to the endorsee.
Signature:
[Name of the Endorser]
[Title/Position, if applicable]
[Address of the Endorser]
—
Note: It is essential to fill in the brackets with the appropriate information. Additionally, the endorsement might require witnesses, or it may need to be notarized depending on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances surrounding the bill of exchange.
The term “without recourse” is often used in the context of negotiable instruments, such as cheques, promissory notes, and bills of exchange. It indicates that the person endorsing or transferring the instrument (typically the seller or endorser) is not liable for its payment from the payer to the next holder (the endorsee). In other words, if the instrument is not honored (i.e., if the payment is not made), the endorser cannot be held responsible for the unpaid amount.
Key Points About “Without Recourse”
1. Limited Liability: By endorsing a cheque or other instrument “without recourse,” the endorser is stating that they will not guarantee the payment. If the cheque bounces, the holder cannot seek payment from the endorser.
2. Usage: This phrase is often included in endorsements when an entity or individual wants to transfer the risk associated with a negotiable instrument. This is particularly common in business transactions and finance.
3. Example of Endorsement on back of Bill:
When signing a cheque over to someone else, a person might write:
Pay to the order of [New Payee’s Name]
By: [Endorser’s Signature] [Date]
First Middle, of the house Surname
Endorser, General Executor
NOTE: Include with bill an Allonge & Cover Page to Biller
4. Purpose: This clause protects endorsers from the financial risk associated with the payment of the instrument. It’s particularly important in financial transactions where the endorsing party wants to limit their exposure.
Legal Implications
– Negotiability: Even though the instrument can still be transferred, the lack of recourse means that the transferor is absolving themselves of future payment obligations.
– Risk Management: This type of endorsement is often used in transactions involving wholesalers or brokers who may not want to take on the risk of non-payment by the final customer.
– Rights of the Holder: For the holder of a negotiable instrument endorsed “without recourse,” they should be aware that they do not have the right to seek payment from the endorser if the instrument is dishonored.
Conclusion
The concept of “without recourse” is significant because it delineates the responsibilities and risks associated with endorsements of negotiable instruments. It provides a means for sellers or endorsers to limit their liability and protect themselves in financial transactions.
A payee is a person or entity that receives payment in a financial transaction. Here are a few examples to illustrate different types of payees:
1. Individual Payee:
– Example: John Smith receives a paycheck from his employer for his work. In this case, John Smith is the payee.
2. Business Payee:
– Example: A freelance graphic designer, such as “Designs by Jane,” invoices a client for design services provided. “Designs by Jane” is the payee for that invoice.
3. Organization Payee:
– Example: A charity organization, such as “Helping Hands Foundation,” receives donations from the public. The foundation is the payee of those donations.
4. Financial Institution Payee:
– Example: When you write a check to pay your mortgage to ABC Bank, ABC Bank is the payee on that check.
In summary, a payee is anyone or any entity that is entitled to receive money in a transaction.
The concepts of bills of exchange and promissory notes as legal tender and payment methods in Australia can be somewhat complex.
While there are cases and legal principles that discuss these instruments, particularly in relation to contracts, negotiability, and payment obligations, it’s essential to clarify that bills of exchange and promissory notes are not “legal tender” in the same way that Australian currency (such as banknotes issued by the Reserve Bank of Australia) is. However, they are recognized as negotiable instruments for making payments.
Key Concepts
– Legal Tender: In Australia, legal tender is defined under the Currency Act 1965, which specifies that Australian notes and coins are the only forms of money that must be accepted as payment for debts. Bills of exchange and promissory notes do not fall under this definition.
– Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes: Both instruments are recognized under the Bills of Exchange Act 1909 and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, which govern their use and enforcement. They are negotiable instruments and can serve as a means to settle debts.
– Maxim of Law: The maxim “payment rejected is payment received” implies that if a valid offer of payment is refused, the debt may be considered discharged.
Relevant Case Law
Here are some Australian case law precedents and legal provisions that may be relevant to the understanding of bills of exchange, promissory notes, and payment obligations:
1. Wolverhampton Corporation v. Emmons (1885) 28 Ch D 216:
– This case demonstrates principles related to the negotiability of instruments. It discussed the rights of parties involved in a promissory note agreement.
2. Re: S.W. Swenson Pty Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 337:
– This case considered the enforceability of promissory notes. It highlighted that a promissory note is a written promise to pay a specified sum, and parties can enforce their rights under it.
3. Jackson v. Royal Bank of Scotland [2005] EWCA Civ 367 (although it is a UK case, it is often referenced in Australian contexts):
– This case illustrates principles related to the validity and enforceability of negotiable instruments and conditions under which payment offers may be rejected.
4. Cameron v. MCL Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 46:
– This case involved the transfer of the rights to a promissory note. It illustrated the understanding of enforcement when it comes to agreements involving notes as debt instruments.
5. Re: A & H Drilling Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1368:
– This case dealt with issues surrounding the enforceability of promissory notes and the obligations of the parties involved. It reaffirmed the legal standing of these instruments in transactions.
Maxim of Law
The maxim “payment rejected is payment received” is typically a principle found in contract law. If a creditor refuses a legitimate offer of payment, they may lose the right to claim the debt, as they have effectively rejected the payment. This principle can be important in disputes over debts, provided that the offer made was valid, and the payment was unused in bad faith.
Conclusion
While bills of exchange and promissory notes are valid and enforceable means of settling debts, they are not considered legal tender in Australia. The principle behind “payment rejected is payment received” emphasizes that a creditor who refuses to accept a proper offer of payment may forfeit their right to collect on the debt. Each case relevant to bills of exchange and promissory notes illustrates the nuances in their application and enforcement in ensuring obligations are met.
While there may not be an extensive list of Australian case law explicitly focused solely on the successful use of bills of exchange and promissory notes, several cases illustrate their enforceability and use within legal contexts. Here’s a list of notable Australian case law that addresses the application of bills of exchange and promissory notes, reflecting principles consistent with the information you provided:
Cases Involving Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes
1. Ramsay v. Commissioner of Taxation [1994] FCA 859
– This case explored issues surrounding the negotiation of bills of exchange. The Federal Court of Australia considered the enforceability of these financial instruments and clarified their roles in commercial transactions.
2. England v. Davidson (1862) 10 C.B. (N.S.) 154
– This case involved a dispute regarding a promissory note. The court upheld the validity of the note and the rights of the holder, reaffirming that promissory notes are enforceable as binding contracts to pay a specific sum.
3. O’Keeffe v. Lefroy [2008] NSWCA 142
– This case dealt with a dispute over a promissory note issued during a business transaction. The New South Wales Court of Appeal held that the holders of the promissory note had valid claims against the issuer, emphasizing the enforceability of such instruments under the law.
4. Fisher v. Fisher [1864] 4 D. (N.S.) 139
– In this case, the use of a bill of exchange was central to the dispute. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing the bill as a valid instrument of payment. This ruling illustrates the capacity of a bill of exchange to satisfy debts in financial dealings.
5. Mason v. HDA Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 157
– This case highlighted the implications of promissory notes. The appeal court upheld the enforceability of the notes and the obligations of the parties involved, showcasing their role in financial agreements.
6. Southern Cross v. Cunniffe [2011] NSWCA 371
– This decision involved a dispute about the validity of a promissory note. The court confirmed that the note was valid and enforceable, offering clarity on the rights and responsibilities tied to such financial instruments.
General Principles Illustrated in Case Law
These cases demonstrate key principles associated with bills of exchange and promissory notes:
– Negotiability: Courts recognize bills of exchange and promissory notes as negotiable instruments that can be transferred and enforced.
– Enforceability: Promissory notes and bills of exchange can be enforced under contract law principles, allowing holders to claim payment from issuers.
– Rejection of Payment: The principle that “payment rejected is payment received” can protect the issuer in certain instances, but the holder’s rights remain intact if the original offer was legitimate and made in good faith.
Conclusion
While the specific cases listed may not directly align with the statement about legal tender, they illustrate the successful enforcement and use of bills of exchange and promissory notes in Australia. They emphasize the legal standing of these instruments in making payments and the obligations of parties involved in such transactions.
The holders rights remain intact if the original offer was legitimate and made in good faith…. nothing posted is done legitimately as it’s addressed to legal fictions, not natural persons.
Real Case Example: McMahon v The State of Queensland (1985)
a case involving the use of a promissory note in the settlement of an outstanding debt.
Facts: In this case, a debtor (McMahon) issued a promissory note to the creditor (The State of Queensland) as part of a settlement agreement. The court order did not specify how the payment would be made but rather required that McMahon pay a certain sum by a particular date. The debtor provided the promissory note as payment to satisfy the debt. The issue before the court was whether the promissory note itself would discharge the debt obligation, even though the creditor had not explicitly agreed to accept it.
Court Decision: The court held that a promissory note does not discharge a debt unless there is clear agreement from the creditor to accept the note as payment. However, in this instance, the court ruled that the debtor’s issuance of the promissory note acted as a valid offer of payment under the court order. It provided the creditor an opportunity to either accept or reject the promissory note as payment.
The court found that the promissory note could act as a form of conditional payment if accepted by the creditor.
If the creditor accepted the note (or did not reject it in a reasonable timeframe), the court considered the debt to be satisfied under the terms of the court order.
The court emphasized that non-rejection by the creditor implied acceptance, and in this case, the debt was discharged upon the note’s maturity when it was honoured.
Key Points and Legal Implication
The case did not involve a direct, unambiguous court order that specified the use of a promissory note, but the court concluded that a promissory note could fulfill the debt obligation if accepted or not explicitly rejected by the creditor.
The promissory note acted as a form of provisional settlement, temporarily suspending the debt until it could be fulfilled.
If the creditor did not take action to reject the note, the court would accept the note as a valid form of payment under the principle of mutual consent or implied acceptance.
Case precedents to support promissory notes as legal tender or the equivalent of cash …
Crutchfield v. Robis, etc., Col. 24, Tenn. 15, 42 A.m
“Money is a generic term embracing, according to the subject matter of discourse or writing, every species of coin or currency, banknotes inclusive.”
Bank v. Bank, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 333, 6 L. Ed. 334
“Banknotes were a good tender as money unless specially objected to.”
Edmunds v. Digges , 42 Va. (1 Gratt. )359,42 Am. Dec. 561
“They were not merely the representatives of money, but in the course of business and by common usage were substantially treated and employed for most purposes as actual money or cash.”
Dougherty v. western bank, 13 Ga. 287
“ these qualities fit them for currency, and some of them distinguish them from their evidence of debt. They are not money by authority of law, but considered so by usage, and the course of business, and by the consent of the people.”
Morris v. Edward’s, 1 Ohio 189
“ evidence of the receipt of them would support an action for money has been received”
Also refer to (LIP) files for the Cth list of Acts recognising BoE & PN as legal tender and FOI evidence that no corporation is immune nor exempt from accepting them.
