LITT
Try LITT free
Henny Sutanto v Suriani Tani (alias Li Yu) and Another [2005] SGHC 82
The court held that the plaintiff was an unlicensed moneylender and that the second defendant was not liable on the cheques as he did not sign them and the plaintiff was not a holder in due course.
City Hardware Pte Ltd v Goh Boon Chye [2005] SGHC 25
The Cheque Truncation System does not modify the legal nature or negotiability of cheques, and presentment is dispensed with where the drawer has no funds and no reason to believe the cheque would be paid.
Itochu Steel Asia Pte Ltd v CV Wira Mustika Indah and Others [2000] SGHC 259
The plaintiffs' claim as drawers of bills of exchange failed because they did not prove payment on the bills as required by s 59(4) of the Bills of Exchange Act. The claim against the third defendant as an accommodation party failed because the plaintiffs were not holders for val
Henny Sutanto v Chandra Suwandi (trading as Global Standard Marketing) [2005] SGCA 45
The failure to present a cheque for payment as required by s 45 of the Bills of Exchange Act is fatal to a claim against the drawer, even if the holder has reason to believe the cheque will be dishonoured.