JurisAtlas

HomeBar Review2009Mercantile LawQuestion XII

Question XII

2009 Bar · Mercantile Law · 2 sub-questions

XII. Gaudencio, a store owner, obtained a P1-million loan from Bathala Financing Corporation (BFC). As security, Gaudencio executed a "Deed of Assignment of Receivables," assigning 15 checks received from various customers who bought merchandise from his store. The checks were duly indorsed by Gaudencio’s customers. The Deed of Assignment contains the following stipulation: "If, for any reason, the receivables or any part thereof cannot be paid by the obligors, the ASSIGNOR unconditionally and irrevocably agrees to pay the same, assuming the liability to pay, by way of penalty, three percent (3%) of the total amount unpaid, for the period of delay until the same is fully paid." When the checks became due, BFC deposited them for collection, but the drawee banks dishonored all the checks for one of the following reasons: "account closed," "payment stopped," "account under garnishment," or "insufficiency of funds." BFC wrote Gaudencio notifying him of the dishonored checks, and demanding payment of the loan. Because Gaudencio did not pay, BFC filed a collection suit. In his defense, Gaudencio contended that
(a)[a] BFC did not give timely notice of dishonor (of the checks); and
(b)[b] considering that the checks were duly indorsed, BFC should proceed against the drawers and the indorsers of the checks. Are Gaudencio’s defenses tenable? Explain. (5%)

Model answer · ALAC

Answer — Legal basis — Application — Conclusion.

AI-drafted in ALAC form and AI-verified against landmark authorities — refined with every round of verification.

Sign in free to read Question I of every Mercantile Law year — subscribe to unlock all model answers & authorities.

Sign in or register — it's freeHave an access code? Redeem it →