Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the correctness of the view of the Supreme Court on the rules of circulation of blank bills of exchange and promissory notes, expressed in the judgment of the Supreme Court of 25 November 2010 (I CSK 387/10) and based on the line of long-established case law. According to this line, the acquirer of a blank instrument should not be protected under Article 10 and 17 of the Law on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes because the endorsement on such instrument produces only effects of an ordinary assignment. The author of this paper presents arguments justifying a partly different opinion on this matter.