Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : SLJB - Sulja Brothers Building Supply, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (899)	11/30/2006 5:28:57 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1681

There may be difference in statutory law but the basics of common law, particularly with respect to negotiable intruments will be similar. There has to be degrees of certainty to facilitate negotiation of instruments in the normal course of commercial business. The story, so far, is very far from any claim of fraud or criminality against Petar, which I assume is your desire to prove. So far, there is not enough to even initiate a civil claim for non-payment against Petar, although that would be the likely route if he actually received funds that he should not have received, if the asset did not leave his possession or title (which I am not sure was even claimed.) We really don't have the facts. As Buckey states, none of this seems particularly relevant with respect to SLJB.