Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. NI Act, Section 118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments of consideration 2022-12-30
Presumptions as to negotiable instruments Rating:
6,5/10
136
reviews
Bath & Body Works is a well-known retailer of personal care and home fragrance products. Founded in 1990, the company has grown to over 1,700 stores in the United States and has a strong online presence as well. In this essay, we will conduct a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis of Bath & Body Works to better understand the company's current position in the market and its potential for growth.
Strengths:
Strong brand recognition: Bath & Body Works is a household name with a loyal customer base. The company's products are well-known for their high quality and appealing scents, which has helped to establish the brand as a leader in the personal care and home fragrance industry.
Wide range of products: Bath & Body Works offers a wide variety of personal care products, including body wash, lotion, and fragrance mist, as well as home fragrance products such as candles and room sprays. This diversity allows the company to appeal to a wide range of customers and meet a variety of needs.
Strong online presence: In addition to its physical stores, Bath & Body Works has a strong online presence, with a user-friendly website and active social media accounts. This allows the company to reach customers beyond its physical locations and make it easy for customers to shop online.
Weaknesses:
Dependence on mall traffic: A significant portion of Bath & Body Works' stores are located in malls, which have been struggling in recent years due to declining foot traffic. This reliance on mall traffic puts the company at risk of declining sales if mall traffic continues to decline.
Limited international presence: While Bath & Body Works has a strong presence in the United States, the company has limited international expansion compared to some of its competitors. This limits the company's potential for growth in the global market.
Opportunities:
Growing demand for natural and organic products: Consumers are increasingly seeking out natural and organic products, and Bath & Body Works has an opportunity to expand its offerings in these areas to meet this demand.
Partnerships and collaborations: Bath & Body Works could consider partnering with other brands or collaborating on limited-edition products to reach new customers and expand its product offerings.
Expansion into new markets: Bath & Body Works could consider expanding into new markets, either through physical stores or online sales, to increase its customer base and revenue.
Threats:
Competition: Bath & Body Works faces strong competition from other retailers in the personal care and home fragrance industries, both from established brands and smaller, niche companies.
Economic downturns: The personal care industry is generally considered to be recession-proof, but economic downturns could still impact Bath & Body Works' sales if consumers cut back on non-essential purchases.
Changes in consumer preferences: As with any company, Bath & Body Works is at risk of changes in consumer preferences and shifts in the market. The company will need to stay attuned to these changes and adapt its strategies accordingly.
In conclusion, Bath & Body Works is a strong company with a well-established brand and a wide range of products. However, the company's reliance on mall traffic and limited international expansion present potential weaknesses, and it will need to stay vigilant in the face of competition and shifts in consumer preferences. By capitalizing on opportunities such as expanding into natural and organic products and entering new markets, Bath & Body Works can continue to grow and succeed in the personal care and home fragrance industry.
117, 118 NI Act
However, the mere failure on the part of the holder in due course to prove the bona fide of absence of negligence on his part would not negative his claim. . If the plaintiff states that a part of the consideration was paid in cash and the rest in some other way but fails to prove payment of the latter part, his claim must fail to the extent of the amount covered by the latter part. Where a pronote was obtained for unlawful consideration the onus lay on the holder to prove that he was a holder in due course and for consideration. The doctrine of caveat emptor applies to sale of negotiable instruments. As has been already stated the onus shifts only when the defendant proves fraud or illegality in the first instance. But the plaintiff can always prove that the consideration recited in the note is not the true one but that it was executed for a different consideration.
That every accepted bill was accepted within a reasoble time after its date and before its maturity. These special rules apply as between the parties to the instruments or those claiming under them. But under the proviso to the clause the initial presumption is rebutted and the burden is shifted to the plaintiff to prove that he is a holder in due course when the defendant establishes that a negotiable instrument was obtained from its maker or holder by means of an offence or fraud or for unlawful consideration or that the acceptance was a forgery. These provisions of the section are imperative and the court is bound to draw the initial presumption that the consideration has passed if the execution of the instrument is admitted or proved and the onus lies on the defendant to prove that there was no consideration. STAMP:-lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped. Therefore, it can be inferred that this presumption arises because of equity, justice and good conscience.
When the recital of consideration in a pronote is false the burden of proving the consideration lies on the holder against the maker and more so against third parties. If fraud is established, then no such estoppel arises. Therefore, a mere denial of the passing of consideration between the original parties does not shift the onus and the defendant is bound to establish it Where a bill is accepted for accommodation the ordinary presumption of the holder being a holder in due course will apply. This is very common in the case of a banker and the customer. In the Plaint all the above facts are mentioned.
Presumptions as to negotiable instrument (Sec 118)
Time of transfer:- every transfer of negotiable instrument was made before its maturity. The presumption so raised will not extend that the cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or liability which is to be proved by the complainant, as held in the case of P. Grote Joint Stock Bank v. State of Kerala Narayanan Gangadhara Panicker v. The ordinary rule that a negotiable instrument has been executed for value is so much weakened by the allegation of the defendant a young man of extravagant habits just emerged from minority that he has not received the full consideration as is sufficient to shift the burden of proof and throw upon the money lender the obligation of satisfying the court that he paid the consideration in full. Surnth Lal, AIR 1942 Cal 553. It should be noted further that presumption, as consideration, is not conclusive.
Where the statement of the plaintiff differs from the statement in the note itself as to consideration the onus lies on the plaintiff to prove that the note was executed for full consideration. Similar will be the position if the statement of the agent of the plaintiff is inconsistent with the recital in the note regarding consideration. They play an important role in the economy in settlement of debts and claims. Thus, in a suit on a note by a holder in due course, the maker will not be permitted to say that the payee was a minor or that he was insane, etc. A holder is not bound to establish that he has given any value for the note until the other side has established the want or failure or illegality of the consideration or that the note had been lost or stolen before it came into the possession of the holder. As soon as the execution is proved, s. This presumption only applies when the acceptance is not dated; if the acceptance bears a date, it will prima facie be taken as evidence of the date on which it was made.
He is entitled to recover only what he paid. Prior to 1881 the transactions governing Negotiable Instruments were regulated under the cover of Indian Contract Act 1872. If such bill is dishonoured, the party dishonouring the same is liable to make compensation thereof in the same manner as in the case of the original bill. RULES OF ESTOPPELS APPLICABLE TO INSTRUMENTS Section 120 — Estoppels against denying original validity of instrument The maker and the drawer, by their agreements are directly responsible to bring the relevant documents into existence. When it is shown that a bill of exchange was a fraudulent one or an illegal one or a stolen one, in any of those cases, it being known that the person who holds it was a party to that fraud, to that illegality or to that theft and, therefore, could not sue upon it himself, the presumption is so strong that he would part with it to some body who could sue for him that it shifts the burden.
Presumptions and Estoppel under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The main object of noting and protesting is to get some person to accept it for the honour of any other party liable thereon, or for the honour of the person for whose account the bill is drawn. Further, he contracts that the signatures of all prior parties from whom he derives titles are genuine. The presumptions from Special rules of Evidence under section 118 to 119. It is also to be noted that under ss. In other words, the signatory is estopped, as against the holder in due course, from setting up the absence of such authority.
NI Act, Section 118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments of consideration
The presumption arises against the debtor personally but not against a creditor or a receiver in an insolvency proceeding. As such the holder need not prove consideration. Nor does any presumption of consideration arise in a criminal trial other as provided in section 139. This section not only prevents the maker of the note from denying the validity of the instrument, but also disables the drawer of the instrument from denying the validity of the instrument. In other words these are presumed to exist in every negotiable instrument and the same need not be proved.
