Undated Instruments. During a three-year period, Appliances, Inc, ...

[PhilipSeeMore]

Undated Instruments. During a three-year period, Appliances, Inc, performed electrical heating and plumbing work for Yost Construction worth approximately 7,000. Yost never paid Appliances for any of these jobs. Yost, in both his capacity as president of the construction company and his individual capacity, signed an undated ninety-day promissory note in favor of Appliances to reduce Yost Construction's debt and to have Appliances perform services for Yost as an individual. Neither Yost in his individual capacity nor Yost Construction paid the note, and Appliances filed suit. The trial court held that the undated note was totally unenforceable. Should Appliances prevail on appeal by arguing that the note was negotiable?

Question 2

Lisa works for Sally. Lisa's jobs include selling the folk-art Santa Claus statutes that Sally hand-makes, as well as purchasing the wood for the statutes. In this case Lisa is:
 a. a servant only b. an agent only
  c. an independent operator d. a servant and an agent e. a master

[duke02]

Answer to Question 1

Undated instruments
No. The appellate court held that the note was nonnegotiable because although a time in-strument was intended, the time for payment was not certain, because the maturity of the ninety day note could not be determined. The court, however, was quick to point out that this fact did not mean that the defendants were not liable. The defendants had hired Appliances and signed the note to have Appliances perform certain services. By accepting the note and performing the services, Appliances created a binding agreement between itself and the defen-dants, enforceable under basic contract law.

Answer to Question 2

d

[PhilipSeeMore]

Excellent

[matt95]

YES! Correct, THANKS for helping me on my review