Opinion ID: 534895
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Breach of Warranty Defenses

Text: 23 The defendant argues that if the plaintiff may sue it directly, then it should be permitted to assert the defense of breach of presentment warranty that would be available to Valley Bank. 8 The U.C.C. clearly restricts the plaintiff's presentment warranties to Valley Bank, as the plaintiff's transferee. See U.C.C. Sec. 3-417(2)(e) and 4-207(2)(e). The rationale for the warranties' restriction is obvious--the payor bank has the capability of ascertaining the status of the drawer's account. 24 The defendant also asserts that it is entitled to assert the warranty defenses because it is a holder in due course. Far West Bank cannot qualify as a holder in due course because it does not possess the check and, therefore is not a holder. U.C.C. Secs. 3-302, 1-201(20). The district court properly refused to allow the defendant to defend on the ground of breach of warranty.