Candy Bar

We will assume this is a Real Candy Bar and not some knock off claiming to be a candy bar.

1.

Buyer wants candy bar. Buyer goes to store and conducts a transaction that evolves giving the seller a dollar bill and in return leaves with a candy bar. Buyer leaves with candy bar and seller has the dollar bill and can do whatever he likes with the dollar bill as these actions will not affect the buyer. An action that could take place here is if the seller says he was not paid and the buyer stole the candy bar. There is no proof that the buyer gave the seller a dollar bill in the purchase of the candy bar unless the serial number was recorded by the buyer prior to the transaction. Seller in reverse cannot prove the candy bar was stolen.

Each party goes their own way.

2.

Buyer purchases a candy bar on credit and signs a slip that states he owes the seller a dollar bill. Later the buyer goes back and gives the seller a dollar bill and retrieves the slip that the seller had filed away in his till that says buyer owes the seller a dollar bill. Each party goes there on way. (My grandma used to sign slips and grandpa would pay up at the end of each month)

Without knowing the exact wording of the slip it would be impossible to determine whether the slip was a negotiable or non‐negotiable instrument. In this instance there is no requirement to determine whether the slip is negotiable or non‐negotiable as either condition of negotiability would be legal.

Buyer gives seller dollar and each party goes their own way.

3.

Buyer purchases a candy bar on credit and signs a slip that states he owes the seller a dollar bill. In this instant the seller had intentions to take the buyers slip and sell the enforcement and collection rights to a 3rd party. 3rd party offers the slip up for sale to a 4th party. If all assignments are attached then 4th party can go get the dollar bill from the buyer.

Buyer gives 4th party dollar bill and gets the slip back and each party goes their own way.

Now we have entered the world of negotiable instruments and the laws that govern negotiable instruments are very precise. Assignment laws as defined by the UCC result in establishing the legal recipient entitled to collect the dollar bill from the buyer. In the absence of assignments, which of the (3) parties is entitled to collect the dollar bill?

Note: There is a difference between holder and holder in due course as defined by the UCC.

4.

Buyer purchases a candy bar on credit and signs a slip that states he owes the seller a dollar bill. In this instant the seller had intentions to take the buyers slip and sell the enforcement and collection rights to a 3rd party. Seller takes the slip and makes a copy on a copy machine and sells this copy to the 3rd party. Seller and 3rd party working in tangent with each other know that the copy of the slip will be further offered up for sale to a 4th party. To aid this perpetrated fraud we create a company that will track the location of the slip and will paste notices on all the billboards that these actions are legal.

Buyer only owes a dollar bill to the one that can prove that a dollar bill is owed.

In this instance proof could never be offered as the lack of assignments cannot prove who is entitled to receive the dollar bill and fraud has been committed by the seller and 3rd party which renders the original slip nullity.

For “A” in California, even a candy bar scenario is not as simple as it seems, very few people have dwelt into the precise UCC laws governing negotiable instruments. It’s not what the buyer does but it’s what the seller, 3rd & 4th party does that destroys the legal enforcement rights of the instrument.

This is what the judges cannot see.

4closureFraud
https://4closurefraud.org/

DOWNLOAD TO READ IF IT DOESN’T LOAD

[scribd id=25698950 key=key-1zrqrl99tuzufukj704r]