Dr. Binod Sinha contracted with Cabanaman Pools & Spa, LLC, to perform services at his home for a contract price of \($41,000.\) During the course of the work, Sinha paid Cabanaman \($31,000.\) Then, on August 8, 2015, he issued a check to Cabanaman for \($10,000.\) That same day, Cabanaman presented the check to S & S Check Cashing and was paid \($9,779.\) When S & S presented the check to the bank, it was dishonored as a result of Sinha’s stop payment order. S & S then assigned the check to Robert Triffin (yes, the same person from the Case Opener) for \($6,500.\) Triffin then filed a complaint against Sinha for the full value of the check. The court ruled that S & S was a holder in due course and Triffin, by virtue of the assignment, was therefore also a holder in due course under the shelter principle. Sinha appealed, and the appellate court affirmed in favor of Triffin. Do you agree with the court’s decision? Is Triffin abusing the shelter principle to make money off of dishonored checks? Are the benefits of encouraging the marketability of instrument of negotiation worth the potential issues created by the shelter principle?