This legal document, part of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes under the Uniform Commercial Code, governs the enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instruments. It applies to persons who are not in possession of an instrument but wish to enforce it. To be entitled to enforce the instrument, the person seeking enforcement must meet certain conditions, including being entitled to enforce the instrument when the loss of possession occurred or acquiring ownership from someone who was entitled to enforce it.

This legal document, part of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes under the Uniform Commercial Code, discusses the effect of different types of instruments on obligations. If a certified check, cashier’s check, or teller’s check is taken for an obligation, the obligation is discharged to the same extent as if an equivalent amount of money was taken in payment. However, the obligor may still have liability as an indorser of the instrument.

This legal provision, found in the New Hampshire Revised Statutes under the Uniform Commercial Code, governs the concept of Accord and Satisfaction by Use of Instrument. It applies to persons against whom a claim is asserted and claimants. The provision outlines the conditions under which a claim can be discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that they in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim, the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute, and the claimant obtained payment of the instrument.

This legal document, part of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes under the Uniform Commercial Code, governs the procedures and rights related to lost, destroyed, or stolen cashier’s checks, teller’s checks, or certified checks. It defines key terms such as ‘check’ (which includes cashier’s checks, teller’s checks, and certified checks), ‘claimant’ (a person claiming the right to receive the amount of a lost, destroyed, or stolen check), and ‘declaration of loss’ (a written statement under penalty of perjury regarding the loss of a check).

A person is not liable on an instrument unless (i) the person signed the instrument, or (ii) the person is represented by an agent or representative who signed the instrument and the signature is binding on the represented person under Section 3-402. Source. 1993, 346:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1994. 2023, 236:15, eff. Oct. 7, 2023.

This legal provision, found in the New Hampshire Revised Statutes under the Uniform Commercial Code, governs the signing of instruments by representatives. If a person acting as a representative signs an instrument using either the name of the represented person or their own name, the represented person is bound by the signature to the same extent as if it were a simple contract. The representative’s signature is considered the authorized signature of the represented person, making them liable on the instrument.

(a) Unless otherwise provided in this Article or Article 4, an unauthorized signature is ineffective except as the signature of the unauthorized signer in favor of a person who in good faith pays the instrument or takes it for value. An unauthorized signature may be ratified for all purposes of this Article. (b) If the signature of more than one person is required to constitute the authorized signature of an organization, the signature of the organization is unauthorized if one of the required signatures is lacking.

This legal document, part of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes under the Uniform Commercial Code, addresses the issue of impostors and fictitious payees in relation to instruments. It states that if an impostor induces the issuer of an instrument to issue it to the impostor or a person acting with the impostor by impersonating the payee or an authorized person, an endorsement of the instrument by any person in the name of the payee is effective as the endorsement of the payee in favor of a person who pays the instrument or takes it in good faith.

This section of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes, specifically the Uniform Commercial Code (Chapter 382-A), addresses the responsibility of employers for fraudulent indorsement by their employees. The section defines key terms such as ’employee’ and ‘fraudulent indorsement’. It states that if an employer entrusts an employee with responsibility for an instrument and the employee or someone acting with them makes a fraudulent indorsement, the indorsement is effective as if made by the person to whom the instrument is payable.

(a) A person whose failure to exercise ordinary care substantially contributes to an alteration of an instrument or to the making of a forged signature on an instrument is precluded from asserting the alteration or the forgery against a person who, in good faith, pays the instrument or takes it for value or for collection. (b) Under subsection (a), if the person asserting the preclusion fails to exercise ordinary care in paying or taking the instrument and that failure substantially contributes to loss, the loss is allocated between the person precluded and the person asserting the preclusion according to the extent to which the failure of each to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss.