"In support of its warranty argument, Wells Fargo vaguely directs us to divisions 3 and 4 of the code. Our review of the 120 or so sections within these two divisions reveals a number of warranties made by a depositor presenting a check (see, e.g., §§ 3416, 3417, 4207, 4208), but we have been unable to locate a specific section providing that a depositor, by presenting a check for payment, warrants there are sufficient funds in the payor bank to cover the item. Unearthing no authority to support this argument, we do not consider it further."
Justice Richard M. Aronson
Holcomb v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Sept. 20, 2007, G037638)
p. 11
About Me
- Pamela Fasick
- I am a member of the California bar who provides research and writing services to other attorneys on a contract basis. The vast majority of my work has been in civil litigation. As a result I'm interested in new developments in a broad range of subject areas and, of course, any changes in civil procedure.
Subscribe Now:
