Which of the following was the result in Michael J.Kane,Jr.v.Grace Kroll,the case in the text in which the defendant issued a check to the plaintiff to cover the plaintiff's sale of cows to the defendant's son,but later stopped payment on the check because her son said he could not repay her?
A)The plaintiff was allowed to recover on a contract theory although he was not a holder in due course.
B)The plaintiff was not allowed to recover because,although he was a holder in due course,the stop payment order negated his entitlement to payment.
C)The plaintiff was allowed to recover because he was a holder in due course.
D)The plaintiff was not allowed to recover because the defendant established a lack of consideration to her.
E)The plaintiff was not allowed to recover because the stop payment order prevented the plaintiff from being a holder in due course.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)The court found that because Kane took for value,in good faith,without knowledge of claims or defenses to the check,he was a holder in due course and not subject to Grace's asserted defenses.
B)The court found that because Kane took for value,in good faith,without knowledge of claims or defenses to the check,he was a holder in due course and not subject to Grace's asserted defenses.
C)The court found that because Kane took for value,in good faith,without knowledge of claims or defenses to the check,he was a holder in due course and not subject to Grace's asserted defenses.
D)The court found that because Kane took for value,in good faith,without knowledge of claims or defenses to the check,he was a holder in due course and not subject to Grace's asserted defenses.
E)The court found that because Kane took for value,in good faith,without knowledge of claims or defenses to the check,he was a holder in due course and not subject to Grace's asserted defenses.

Which of the Following Was the Result in Michael J