Triffin v. Dillabough

The majority concludes that appellee Robert J. Triffin (“appellee”) is entitled to recover the value of the money orders at issue because the money orders were negotiable instruments and because appellee was a holder in due course of those negotiable instruments. However, since the money orders at issue contained express conditional language which precluded negotiability under the relevant statute, I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion.

The requirements for negotiability are set forth at 13 Pa. C.S. § 3104, which provides:1(a) Requisites to negotiability. — Any writing to…