登录之后可查看解析

D is corrent. Bay, as a holder in due course, took the instrument free of all personal defenses but would be unable to defeat real defenses present on the instrument. Fraud in the inducement is a personal defense which would not be good against Bay. However, Dodger materially altered the check which creates a personal defense to the extent of the original tenor of the check ($900) and a real defense to the extent the instrument was altered ($1,000). Consequently, Bay will prevail against Tell to the extent of $900.
A is incorrect. A customer (i.e., drawer) has the right to order his/her bank to stop payment on a check if the order is received at such time and in such manner as to afford the bank a reasonable opportunity to act on it prior to payment. Therefore, it would not matter that Tell’s stop payment order was issued after the negotiation to Bay.
B is incorrect. Dodger, being the party who materially altered the check, would have no defense to payment of this instrument.
C is incorrect. Normally a holder has no right to compel payment of a check by the drawee bank. This is true even though a stop payment order has not been issued by the drawer. Only when the bank has certified the check can the holder compel payment by the drawee bank.