5 Weeks to study, with a goal of 16 hours a week, and 2-4 hours a week for review. 20 hours a week for 5 weeks for a total of 100 hours of study time to pass regulation. I don't plan to spend a large amount of time on the simulations since I am experienced in taxation. Most of this study time will be focused on the multiple choice questions.
My study plan for regulation:
June 13 – 20 Ethics, Property Transactions, Individual Tax (Strong area’s to begin with)
June 21 – 27 Corp, Partnership, S-Corp, Estate & Gift, Fiduciary tax (Stong area)
June 28 – July 4 Business Law – Agency & Contracts (Weak area)
July 5 – 11 Articles & Bankruptcy (Weak)
July 12 – 17 Bankruptcy, federal security regulations, business structure (Weak area)
I plan to post each week's notes to each of these sections that I study. I only make notes on area's that are new to me or areas that I am weak in. I also create flashcards in Excel, if I have time I will try to share those as well.
"Don't wish it were easier, work yourself to become better!"
Very basic UCC stuff, but helpful in sorting out all the different terms: http://tinyurl.com/5ughb2g
ReplyDeleteFor all practical purposes, a holder of a negotiable instrument has the same legal rights as a holder in due course of a negotiable instrument.
ReplyDeleteA) True
B) False
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show Answer
The correct answer is: B
False - Herein lies the very essence of the law of negotiable instruments. The holder of a negotiable instrument merely has the rights that an assignee would have in contract law. A holder in due course of a negotiable instrument has much greater rights. In contract law, if A sells goods to B, and A assigns to C the right to receive payment from B, C is an assignee who has no greater rights than A had. Thus, if the goods were defective, B could refuse to pay C just as B could have refused to pay A. However, if B pays for the goods by giving A a negotiable instrument, then A transfers the instrument to C, the result is different even though the transaction is the same. In that case, if C qualifies as a holder in due course, B must make payment to C even if the goods were defective (but can then seek redress from A). If C is a mere holder, and not a holder in due course, B is not required to make payment if the goods were defective.