Lurago Week 3 Assignment 1

582 Words3 Pages
Week 3 Assignment Question 22.10 The reference to the mortgage caused the note to be nonnegotiable here. UCC does allow negotiable instruments to be secured by mortgages, however the negotiability of an instrument is destroyed if it incorporates by reference the terms & conditions of the mortgage. In this case the terms of the mortgage were incorporated into the note and the terms of the payment could not be determined by looking solely at the face of the note itself. Chapter 23.8 Angelini wins because General is not the holder in due course. General is not the holder in due course because they did not acquire the note in good faith. To become a holder in due course, the owner must be in effect a bonafide purchaser and in this case the observance if reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. The more a holder knows about the underlying transaction, and particularly the more he controls or participates or becomes involved in it, the less he fits the role of a good faith purchaser for value. In this case General had knowledge that Lustro was nearly insolvent at the time of the assignment and that Lustro…show more content…
Breach of Contract is one of the most common defenses raised by a party to a negotiable instrument. If there is a breach of contract and there was in this case this particular personal defense is effective only against an ordinary holder. Since Mortgage Finance is a holder in due course the Mahaffey’s cannot assert any personal defenses against Mortgage Finance. The Mahaffey’s can sue Five Star but will probably lose because the Mahaffey have no leverage against Five Star and the court action can be expensive and time consuming. However, the FTC rule which eliminates HDC status with regard to negotiable instruments arising out of certain consumer credit transactions can be asserted to prevent enforcement of a note that arose from a covered
Open Document