Question

ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEMS CHAPTER 25 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS 25-1. Bearer Instruments. Gilbert Ramirez claimed that he had purchased a winning lottery ticket, the prize for which was approximately $1.5 million. Unfortunately, Ramirez had lost the ticket itself and therefore could not claim the prize. Even though the evidence indicated that he very likely was indeed the purchaser of the winning ticket, under the state lottery rules, he could not claim the prize unless he produced the winning ticket. In a legal action brought by Ramirez against the state lottery bureau, Ramirez claimed, among other things, that the lottery ticket was a negotiable instrument because on the back of each lottery ticket were the following words: "THIS TICKET IS A BEARER INSTRUMENT SO TREAT IT AS IF IT WERE CASH." Because the owner of a lost negotiable instrument can collect on the instrument if certain requirements are met-such as establishing proof of ownership, the terms of the instrument, and so on- Ramirez argued that he should be allowed to claim the prize if he could meet these requirements. Discuss fully whether Ramirez will succeed in his claim that the lottery ticket was a negotiable instrument. (Ramirez v. Bureau of State Lottery, 186 Mich.App. 275, 463 N.W.2d 245 (1990)

Answer 1

solution :

ISSUE

It is impossible to Ramirez to win in the above case because his claims does not tally or fit the requirement of a lottery ticket to be considered negotiable. His lottery ticket lacked the endorser's signature hence is non-negotiable. This can be interpreted in the court of law to mean imply that it lacked the promissory note where the amount to be paid is stated.

RULE

The court will reject the claims of Ramirez under the grounds that the lottery ticket above exhibits differences from the instruments bearing hidden duty proofs which are neither changing nor getting faulty; the lottery ticket is rewarded only by money which is owned by another party or lottery company in this case.

EXPLANATION

The court's decision or rule stemmed from the fact that all lottery tickets are guided by similar policies, rules, and regulations and Ramirez's case is just like any other case and therefore cannot change the lottery instrument because they all work for the good of the common law or policy. In conclusion, based on the above explanation, I agree with the court's decision to deciding in favor of the defendant and not the plaintiff.