A bill of exchange is a fundamental negotiable instrument in commercial transactions. In this case, Company A receives a 500,000 yuan bill from Company B, with Bank C designated as the payer. Company B acts as the drawer who issues the bill, Bank C is the drawee who must pay, and Company A becomes the payee who receives the bill. This creates a three-party relationship that forms the basis of our legal analysis.
The endorsement process is crucial in bill of exchange transfers. When Company A endorses the bill to Person D for goods payment, they sign the back of the bill, creating a transfer of ownership. However, Company A adds a critical restriction by writing 'non-transferable' on the endorsement. This restrictive endorsement limits Person D's ability to further transfer the bill and creates specific legal implications for the liability chain. The endorsement signature establishes Company A's liability while the restriction attempts to control subsequent transfers.
The 'non-transferable' notation creates significant legal implications. When Company A added this restriction, it prohibited any further transfer of the bill. However, Person D violated this restriction by transferring the bill to Person E anyway. This creates a complex legal situation where the transfer may be considered invalid under negotiable instrument law. The comparison shows that while a normal transfer would be valid with proper endorsement, this unauthorized transfer breaks the intended liability chain and creates legal consequences for all parties involved.
The right of recourse is a fundamental principle in negotiable instruments law. When a bill is dishonored by non-acceptance, the current holder can pursue prior endorsers for payment. However, the 'non-transferable' notation significantly affects this liability chain. While Person E can normally pursue recourse against all prior parties, the restrictive endorsement creates a barrier. The normal liability flow from Company B through Company A to Person D is interrupted. Person E's primary recourse is against Person D, who directly transferred the bill despite the restriction. The liability chain shows that Person D becomes the immediate target for recourse, while recourse against earlier parties may be blocked by the restriction.
Now let's analyze Person E's recourse options systematically. When Bank C refuses acceptance, Person E must determine who can be held liable. Examining each option: Company B, the original drawer, is protected by the non-transferable restriction. Company A, who added the restriction, is also protected from recourse. Bank C, as the drawee, has no liability for recourse since they simply refused acceptance. However, Person D, who directly endorsed the bill to Person E despite the non-transferable notation, remains liable. Person D violated the transfer restriction and created direct liability to Person E. Therefore, the correct answer is A - Person D.