Which of the following was the ruling of the court in the Case Opener regarding the gambler who wrote bad checks to a casino to purchase markers and then tried to avoid payment on the basis of an oral agreement by which a casino host told the gambler that he already had sufficient remaining casino credit to receive the markers?

A) The potential oral agreement as to the markers was irrelevant to the negotiability of the checks.
B) The oral agreement was relevant to the negotiability of the checks, but it did not affect the gambler's liability on the checks.
C) The oral agreement was relevant to the negotiability of the checks and acted to excuse the gambler from liability on the checks.
D) The oral agreement established that the checks were not negotiable instruments.
E) The oral agreement established breach of contract; therefore, while another type of instrument would have been negotiable, the checks involved were not.

Question

Jesse Pavel · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : A, Explanation :  The potential oral agreement regarding the markers did not affect the negotiability of the checks. In such cases, the law typically views the checks as independent obligations to pay, separate from any other agreements or understandings between the parties.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions