In the case of Sack Lumber Co. v. Goosic, 15 Neb.App. 529, 732 N.W.2d 690 (2007), the trial court found in favor of Goosic. The Appellate court affirmed.
The Court determined that under UCC 3-419 , a person receiving only an indirect benefit from a transaction can qualify as an accommodation party.
Goosic was not a direct beneficiary of the value given by Sack Lumber for the instrument, the court's determination that Goosic was an accommodation party was correct.
Jess intentionally cancelled Ben's signature, thus didscharging Ben's liability without consideration under UCC 3-604(a)(i). When Jess crossed out Ben's indorsement she also removed the liability of subsequent indorsers under UCC 3-604(a)(i).
When Jess reacquired the note previously held by her, all intervening parties were discharged under UCC 3-207.
Hence Jess cannot hold any of the previous indorsers liable on the note.
In the case of Triffin v. Ameripay, LLC., 368 N.J.Super. 587, 847 A.2d 628 (App.Div. 2004), the trial court found in favor of Triffin. The Appellate court reversed.
The Court determined that under UCC 3-402(c), liability for the dishonored checks rests on the disclosed principal, not the agent. Therefore, a company's check binds only the company and not the agent.
Hence, Ameripay as an agent was not liable to Triffin for the funds that their customer, NRTN did not deposit to cover the checks.