Study On Malice And Good Will In Negotiable Instruments Law

As a kind of credit or payment tool, bill circulates among different parties. In bill relations, the malice and good will of people, which affect one's behavior deeply, must be paid more attention to. This article contrasts bill party's malice with his good will, and discuss some material provisions in Negotiable Instruments Law. The first part of this article summarized the limitation between good will and malice of bill party. The author thinks that good will means: First, it is a kind of subjective metal state; Second, the party don't and also can't know his behavior being short of law basis; Third, the party thinks that his behavior is legal or the opposite party has legal basis of right. Our Negotiable Instruments Law doesn't prescribe good will directly, but consider the accepter has good will when it is provable that he doesn't have malice or fatal defect. Malice means that the party knows his behavior is short of law basis or his opposite party doesn't have legal right. Here, "know"means "has known", doesn't include "should know". When the party is short of the minimum notice obligation which results in his ignorance, we consider that he has fatal defect. Malice in Negotiable Instruments Law means that bill party knows there is flaw on the bill when he carries out bill behavior. Fatal defect is such a mentality which means the party is slack to be as cautious as everyman which results in his ignorance. The second part of this article expatiates some kinds of malice in Negotiable Instruments Law. It focuses on the malice in bill acquirement, bill defense and malice of the payer or vicegerent payer. One can't get bill rights if he acquired the bill illegally or he knew that the transferor doesn't have the right to dispose the bill. Since the tenet of bill law rests with protecting legitimate bill party, the legality and justice in bill acquirement must be emphasized. If bill holder knows his acquirement of bill will harm the debtor's interest and still does so, the debtor has the right to refuse his request when he exercises bill rights. Here, we call the debtor's plea "malice defense". In negotiable instruments theory, there is time limit of malice estimation—the time of accepting. In addition, our Negotiable Instruments Law requires the payer or the vicegerent payer can't have malice or fatal defect when paying. Malice here means the payer pays the bill though he knows the holder isn't the real bill owner and it is easy to approve so; fatal defect means the payer is so careless that he didn't find out the holder wasn't the real bill owner though he should know this if he had been a little more careful. The third part of the article expatiates good will in Negotiable Instruments Law. It is mainly focus on good will acquirement and good will payment. Good will in Negotiable Instruments Law must fulfill the following requirements: the holder acquires the bill through legitimate transference; the holder acquires the bill from someone without disposal right. As to payment, if the payer has checked whether the holder is the real owner carefully and make a false payment, which is called good will payment, the payer can avoid legal liability. Both good will acquirement and good will payment are systems protecting the well-meaning party in bill actions. The former aims at protecting the holder and the latter aims at the payer, yet both systems help to promoting the circulation of bill and the security of bill relation. The forth part of the article focus on some correlative issues in...