In this strange case, Albertson has already been convicted of passing checks that were ultimately dishonored because of insufficient funds in Albertson's checking account. Both Albertson and a witness claim that the person to whom the checks were issued had an agreement with Albertson that the drawee would hold on to the checks until Albertson had sufficient funds to cover the checks. The drawee was a used-car dealer who admitted in court that he had hold-check agreements with others but could not recall whether he had one with Albertson. Naturally, Albertson does not want to be liable for the checks that were later dishonored. Given the principles of law you learned in this chapter, what facts would need to be true for Albertson to have a reasonable argument on his behalf? [Albertson v. State, 2013 WL 3233378 (Md. App. 2013).]