Virginia § 8.3A-406 Negligence contributing to forged signature or alteration of instrument

Virginia Statutes

§ 8.3A-406 — Negligence contributing to forged signature or alteration of instrument

Virginia § 8.3A-406

Title 8.3ACOMMERCIAL CODE — NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS

Part 4LIABILITY OF PARTIES

This text of Virginia § 8.3A-406 (Negligence contributing to forged signature or alteration of instrument) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Va. Code Ann. § 8.3A-406 (2026).

Text

(a)A person whose failure to exercise ordinary care substantially contributes to an alteration of an instrument or to the making of a forged signature on an instrument is precluded from asserting the alteration or the forgery against a person who, in good faith, pays the instrument or takes it for value or for collection.

(b)Under subsection (a), if the person asserting the preclusion fails to exercise ordinary care in paying or taking the instrument and that failure substantially contributes to loss, the loss is allocated between the person precluded and the person asserting the preclusion according to the extent to which the failure of each to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss.

(c)Under subsection (a), the burden of proving failure to exercise ordinary care is on the pe

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(a) A person whose failure to exercise ordinary care substantially contributes to an alteration of an instrument or to the making of a forged signature on an instrument is precluded from asserting the alteration or the forgery against a person who, in good faith, pays the instrument or takes it for value or for collection.

(b) Under subsection (a), if the person asserting the preclusion fails to exercise ordinary care in paying or taking the instrument and that failure substantially contributes to loss, the loss is allocated between the person precluded and the person asserting the preclusion according to the extent to which the failure of each to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss.

(c) Under subsection (a), the burden of proving failure to exercise ordinary care is on the person asserting the preclusion. Under subsection (b), the burden of proving failure to exercise ordinary care is on the person precluded.