Opinion ID: 1179586
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Acceptance and Presentment Jury Instruction

Text: Nautilus contends that the superior court erred in instructing the jury on the suspension of underlying contractual obligations upon acceptance of a check pending its presentment and honor or dishonor by the drawee bank. [7] Nautilus argues that its obligation to pay VFDA should have been suspended upon VFDA's acceptance of the check, until such time as VFDA actually presented the check for payment by Nautilus's bank and payment was refused. The challenged portion of the instruction reads: Acceptance of a check ... does not suspend the underlying obligation if the party signing the check (the drawer) has no reason to expect or right to require that the instrument be accepted as paid. In these circumstances presentment of the check is entirely excused. The drawer has no right to require that a check be accepted or paid by a drawee bank where it has insufficient funds on account to pay the check and has not established credit with the drawee bank to assure payment. Former AS 45.03.511 reads in part: (b) Presentment ... is entirely excused if.... (2) the party has dishonored the instrument or has countermanded payment, or otherwise has no reason to expect or right to require that the instrument be accepted or paid.... AS 45.03.511 ( repealed § 127 ch. 35 SLA 1993 (effective January 1, 1994)). While the wording of the jury instruction differs from that of the statute in small ways, the concepts expressed are substantially the same. The instruction provided the jury with a correct statement of the law it was to apply.