The case at hand pertains to business ethics. Business ethics are the moral principles that steer businesses to act ethically while making sound decisions for the good of the business and making the right choices. This is the main reason why businesses have policies and rules that are followed in their day-to-day operations of the business and if there is a violation depending on the circumstances the individual(s) could be terminated as individuals or fined as a business. Furthermore, if you are working for a company and you are asked to do something that may be unethical weigh your options and make a sound decision accordingly to the benefit of the company and yourself morally.
Parties
The plaintiffs and defendants in this case are as follows: General Investment Corp. is a corporation based out of New Jersey (Plaintiff-Respondent), Anthony V. Angelini and Delores H. Angelini homeowners (Defendant-Appellants), Lustro Aluminum Products Inc. contracted to put siding on home (Defendant). The Supreme Court decided on June 7, 1971. Mr. Milton argued the case for the appellants, and Mr. Davis S. Baime argued the case for the respondent from Baime and Baime attorneys. Francis J. delivered the opinion of the court.
Facts
Anthony and Delores Angelini are homeowners that needed work done on their home. Lustro Aluminum Products is a contracting company that does home repair. The Angelini’s entered into a contract with Lustro for repair work on their home on December 10, 1966.” Lustro was licensed under the Home Repair Financing Act of New Jersey, chapter 41 laws 1960.” (General Investment Corporation v. Angelini)
Lustro was to supply and install the “Gold Bond Plasticrylic Avocado Siding with Grey Sills & Trim. Apply Heavy Quilted Breather Foil on all wall areas around complete house. Corner posts to be green, all mullions to be fabricated in grey aluminum. Supply & install 2 anodized storm doors (Rear & Side Entrances). All overhangs & trim to be covered with special Marine Paint in grey color (as close as possible to Oxford grey trim).” (General Investment Corporation v. Angelini) The Angelini’s received a fixed quote for the contract for $3,600 for the work, but they were also quoted another price for $5,363.40 and it could be paid in 84 monthly installments of $63.84. On the same date as the contract the Angelini’s sign a note stating that they would pay in installments, so they received an application for credit and everything needed to continue with the purpose of financing the $5,363.40. Furthermore, these payments were to commence 60 days after the work was complete. However, when the contract was signed it was not date nor was the commencement of the first payment. In the trial court, the same contract had no dates but signatures of the Angelini’s.
On December 19, 1966, Lustro went to General Investment Corporation to assign the note for consideration. “General Investment Corporation dealt with 300 contractors and arranges 1800 home improvement loans a year.” Approximately 10 percent of Generals business came from Lustro. When Lustro, arrived at General it was inferred that all works have been completed and all paper work was signed and legit. However, if the agent for General asked for a certificate of completion signed by the Angelini’s he or she would have known that the contract was not completed in a workman like manner. Furthermore, General accepted the form without the certificate of completion stating that the work was completed within the dates of December 10 and December 19, 1966.
However, work did not start on the Angelini’s home until the 15th of December 1966. This was the start day, and then Lustro disappeared for a few days and started working again. This was the last time Lustro worked on the Angelini’s home. Therefore, work was left undone and the Angelini’s were out of luck on the repairs. Once the note was discounted the commencement date came out to be February 19, 1966, which is exactly 60 days from the time Lustro entered into their business and executed the note with General.
On December 24, 1966, the Angelini’s received a payment book that stated the first payment should be made on February 19, 1967. Angelini’s contracted work was not complete, so why would they be receiving this payment book for their first payment. By Lustro taking the note made him the holder and once the note was transferred to General then General became the holder in due of the note, “because it was taken for value in good faith and without notice that it is defective or overdue.” (Cheeseman, 364) If General is not the holder in due, it can use the defense of failure of consideration because they acted in good faith taking the note without knowing whether Lustro has taken care of the obligation bestowed upon him as a holder.
Therefore, General is not the holder of the note and will use the defense of failure of consideration, because the evidence proved to the courts that the note was not claimed in good faith. The trial courts ruled in favor of the General Investment Corporation due to failure of consideration. However, evidence proved that work was not complete and that Lustro was only out to make money and pawn the note to a third party for the value of the contract since his business was insolvent.
“The judgment is reversed. Since plaintiff relied entirely upon its alleged status as a holder in due course, and, therefore, offered no proof on defendants' claim of lack of completion of Lustro's work, the cause is remanded for a plenary trial on that issue.” Angelini’s win
Procedure
General Investment Corporation was the one that brought this trial to court. It was not fully determined whether the note was of good faith or not because this was a company that provided General with 10 percent of their business. Therefore, it would have been easy to turn a blind eye to some of the necessary documents needed from the client before the transaction could take place. In this case, the transferee was Lustro and there had to be some form of forgery, alteration, or irregularities that made Lustro stand out as the holder of the note and attempting to get General to be the holder in due should have been questionable.
Issues
This case made a full turn and went from pointing at the Angelini’s for not making their payment as it was stated in the contract 60 days after the work was complete in a workmanlike manner and winning in the lower court; to having the court’s decision reversed due to General not being the holder in due and not taking the note in good faith due to Lustro trying to transfer the note within 10 days after its execution.
Holding
The courts resolved this issue by not allowing the contractor or any assignee from any liability that the homeowner may have against the contractor or the assignee; therefore, holding them liable for their actions “L. 1969, c. 237, § 2 and N.J.S.A. 12A:9-206 provides.” Both are to be used in the near future in New Jersey for the protection of the homeowner. These statues will make it difficult for contractors to take advantage of homeowners.
Reasoning
The reasoning behind the court’s decision to reverse their decision was that the General Investment Corporation was not the holder in due to the note of the Angelini’s, because the note was not taken in good faith. However, the lower courts did rule in favor of General.

Summary
The summary of this case is Anthony and Delores Angelini was trusting of Lustro Aluminum Products. You never know the intentions of an individual. Lustro decided what he was going to do while in the Angelini’s home discussing what they wanted done. Yes, Lustro could have done it but was he really able financially. Therefore, the note was transferred to General Investment Corporation for the value of the contract. The work started and stopped and started again and then it stopped completely. General sent out a payment booklet with the date of the first payment. Angelini’s did not understand because the work was not complete. They sent the book back and stated the payment will be sent out 60 days from the completion of the contract. A few months went by and General decided to sue for the payment of the contract.
Trial court awarded in favor of General even though all paperwork was not there and there was not dates on the contract, this ruling was reversed because the note was not in good faith and General was not the holder in due of the note. Therefore, Angelini’s win the case.

23.1 Indorsement
Was the bank liable for the deposit of Katherine Warnock check by her lawyer into his own personal trust account after signing for deposit only under Katherine Warnock’s name? Yes, the bank is held liable because if the check is not blank or written to you personally, you cannot deposit it into your account. This is a breach of duty to the Warnock estate by the bank for allowing this to take place. The lawyer Mr. Quick made this check an indorsement for deposit or collection when he wrote for deposit under the original endorsee’s name.

23.2 Indorsement
Was the note properly endorsed by Williams to Phillip L. Bush? NO, it was not properly endorsed by William because he did not sign on the promissory note his name and pay to Phillip L. Bush under his name. As our text book states, an indorsement is a signature somewhere on the document, not on a piece of paper attached to the document. This is why Mary Williams refused to pay. This could have been someone that stole the promissory note and is trying to cash it for personal gains. Since there was ample room on the note for the information this note was not properly endorsed; however, if the note was full and you had to attach a piece of paper then it would be called allonge “which is a separate piece of paper attached to an instrument on which an endorsement is written.” (Cheeseman 359)
23.3 Indorsement
Is the bank liable for chasing a check that was supposed to be deposited into a business account for Dental Supply? No, the bank is not liable for Wilson cashing a check instead of depositing them. The rubber stamp constitutes, “ Article 3.204, Tex. Uniform Commercial Code, U.T.C.A., defines a blank endorsement as one that specifies no particular endorsee and may consist of a mere signature.” Therefore, the bank did not do anything wrong and was not guilty of conversion of the funds.
23.4 Order or bearer Paper
If the teller at CMN Bank cashes the check without it being endorsed then it is bearer paper. Bearer paper is an instrument that is negotiated by delivery, but a signature is not needed to cash it. This instrument is doing what it is supposed to do which is going to the bank, but what happens in transit the City Savings Bank and Trust would have to find out what happened to the deposit when they do not see a deposit.
23.5 Taking for Value
In the case of Standard and Betty Ellis, Standard did take the note for value, because they were given $2,800 for the note. Therefore, the winner in this case would be Standard. The day Betty Ellis and her husband walked into Standard with the promissory note and walked out with $2,800 and then went to the bank and both signed the check states that now Standard was the holder in due of the note.
23.6 Holder in Due Course
Is the bank the holder in due course? No, the bank is not the holder in due course, but the debtor who receives the payment is the holder in course. M & I was not the holder or the holder in due course of the check, therefore there was no cause of action for M & I Bank. The winner of this case was National Financial Services Bank, because there was no holder in due course for the check ; therefore, National win this case.

References
General Investment Corporation v. Angelini, 278 A.2d 193, Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1971 N.J. Lexis 263 retrieved 8/15/2015

Cheeseman, Henry. Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues, 7th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions. Retrieved on 8/15/2015 VitalBook file.

Cheeseman, Henry. Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues, 7th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions. Retrieved 8/15/2015, Pg.359 VitalBook file.