Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 28.08.1985 744 AI generated

Court dismisses claim for 81,000 marks where holder knew of poor solvency and acted negligently.

Case Number Helsingin HO 28.08.1985 744
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court's decision denying the 81,000 mark claim against the original debtor. The holder of the promissory note knew the debtor's poor financial state but failed to investigate the transaction details before accepting the note. The court ruled that the holder's negligence in verifying the debt's validity precluded recovery under the relevant bill of exchange laws.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Bill of Exchange Act s. 17; The holder of a promissory note who knows the debtor's poor financial situation and fails to investigate the transaction details acts negligently and cannot recover the debt.

Keywords

AI generated
bill of exchange negligence promissory note financial solvency holder in due course recovery of debt verification duty

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Bill of Exchange Act s. 17
AI generated
kko-precedent_1989_118
Supreme Court dismisses guarantor's appeal; creditor loses right to claim due to failure to enforce disputed debt in bankruptcy.
appeal_1980_eastern-finland__543
Court dismissed appeal against bank's refusal to recognize holder's rights due to missing continuous transfer chain proof.
kko-precedent_1992_137
Supreme Court allows creditor's claim to challenge a secured debt despite a final payment order. The court ruled that a final payment order does not bar a separate lawsuit to verify the debt's validity. The lower court incorrectly dismissed the claim based on the existence of the payment order.
kko-precedent_1989_12
Guarantor not fully released when creditor knew of forgery but had no reason to verify signature.
kko-precedent_1991_35
Supreme Court allows partial recovery against guarantors who failed to prove creditor paid the principal debt.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A oli, hävittyään uhkapelissä, antanut B:lle maksuksi pelivelasta hyväksyjänä allekirjoittamansa 81.000 markan määräisen vekselin. Sittemmin B oli antanut vekselin C:lle. Asiassa oli käynyt ilmi C:n tienneen, että B:n taloudellinen asema oli huono. Tämän vuoksi ja ottaen huomioon vekselin suurehko markkamäärä ja poikkeuksellisen pitkä maksuaika ja kun vekseliin oli merkitty A:n puhelinnumerot, C:llä on ollut erityinen aihe ja mahdollisuus ottaa selkoa vekselin syntymisolosuhteista. C oli, sen laiminlyödessään, toiminut vekselilain 17 §:ssä tarkoitetuin tavoin tahallaan A:n vahingoksi.

HO pysytti RO:n päätöksen lopputuloksen, jolla RO vahvisti, ettei B:llä tai C:llä ollut kyseisen vekselin perusteella eikä muutenkaan mainittua 81.000 markan saatavaa.

Läsnä: Hiltunen, Kalliokoski ja Martimo Esittelijä: Rousu

KKO:n ratkaisu: Ei valituslupaa Päätös n:o 3249/11.12.1985