Negotiable versus Nonnegotiable Instruments. Briggs signed a note ...

[bb]

Negotiable versus Nonnegotiable Instruments. Briggs signed a note that read in part as follows: Ninety days after date, I, we, or either of us, promise to pay to the order of Three Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-Eight and 45/100Dollars. The words and symbols in italic were typed, and the rest of the words were preprinted. No blanks had been left on the face of the instrument; any unused space had been filled in with hyphens. The note contained several clauses that permitted acceleration in the event the holder deemed itself insecure. When the note was not paid at maturity, Broadway Management Corp brought suit on the note for full payment, claiming that it (Broadway) was a holder. Is this an order or bearer instrument? What changes, if any, would have to be made on the note for it to be a negotiable instrument?

Question 2

Employment-at-will:
 a. allows employees to quit their jobs for any reason at any time
  b. allows employers to discharge employees for any reason at any time subject to contract obligations
  c. has been restricted by the courts or legislatures in some states that recognize some public policy limitations on the employer's right to fire an employee
  d. a and b
  e. a, b and c

[Kimmy]

Answer to Question 1

Negotiable versus nonnegotiable instruments
If the instrument was a bearer instrument, then Broadway's possession qualified it as a holder. If it was an order instrument, wherein a specifically named payee must be determined upon the face of the instrument, then Broadway could not qualify as a holder. The court, citing the official comments to the UCC on bearer instruments, noted that an instrument payable to the order of ______' is not bearer paper but an incomplete order instrument unenforceable until completed in accordance with authority. The court held that the instrument implied that the payee's name is to be inserted between the promise and the amount making the note an order instrument, and, until inserted, the instrument was incomplete. The instrument was, therefore, not negotiable.

Answer to Question 2

e

[bb]

Correct answers!

[Kimmy]

Great! Please up vote