modern commerce

modern commerce 1.    Negotiable Instruments (also called commercial paper) are vital to the functioning of modern commerce. How do we create a negotiable instrument? Is the Instrument in case 22.9 a negotiable instrument? Why or why not? Case 22.9 Reference to Another Document J. Monte Williamson was the owner of a 16.65 percent interest in Lake Manor Associates, a partnership. Williamson agreed to sell his interest to H. Louis Salomonsky and Tiffany H. Armstrong in exchange for shares of a certain stock valued at $15 per share and a non-interest-bearing note in the amount of $4,000 for the balance. The notes were executed and contained the following notation: “For value received, the undersigned promises to pay to the order of J. Monte Williamson the principal sum of $4,000 payable as set forth in that certain agreement, an executed copy of which is attached hereto.” The agreement referred to in the notes listed conditions that had to be met to cause the notes to become due. Five years after the notes were executed, Salomonsky and Armstrong claimed that because the notes were negotiable instruments, the statute of limitations on the enforcement of the notes has run. Are these notes negotiable instruments? Salomonsky v. Kelly, 232 Va. 261, 349 S.E.2d 358, Web 1986 Va. Lexis 253 (Supreme Court of Virginia). 2.    What is a Holder in Due Course? How is a Holder in Due Course defined? Why is this doctrine a necessary part of negotiable instrument law? What are the requirements for Holder in Due Course status? Are the requirements for Holder in Due Course satisfied in Case 23.6? Why or why not? What are negotiable instruments? And how are they created? Case 23.6 Holder in Due Course National Financial Services (National) issued a check to Patrick J. Doherty for $62,812.36. The check was drawn on National’s account at the Bank of New England. The next day, Doherty took the check to his bank, the M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank (M & I), and properly indorsed it. The bank gave Doherty $1,350 in cash and deposited the remainder of the funds into his checking account at the bank. As soon as the check was deposited, M & I froze these funds to help offset a $90,000 overdraft in Doherty’s account. When Doherty learned of this action, he contacted National and asked them to stop payment on the check. Although National agreed to do so, it refused to issue a new check until the original check was returned. In the meantime, M & I forwarded the check for payment to the Bank of New England. The Bank of New England returned the check to M & I, stamped “payment stopped.” When M & I received the dishonored check, it sent it to Doherty, who forwarded it to National. National then issued Doherty a new check. M & I sued National to recover on the first check. M & I claims it was a holder in due course and that National could not stop payment on the check. Who wins? M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. National Financial Services Corporation, 704 F.Supp. 890, Web 1989 U.S. Dist. Lexis. 1233 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin) 3.    View/Read Transcript attached. What is Hal’s role in this situation? What is a surety contract? What is a guarantee contract? How is a security interest created and perfected? How do we determine priority interests between competing security interests? 4.    It's also important to remember that perfection and attachment are two separate concepts that are both important parts of this topic. Why are both necessary? How is a security interest created? What are some of the different methods of perfection?  PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT :)