CO Code § 4-3-115 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 4 - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 3 - Negotiable Instruments|Part 1 - General Provisions and Definitions|§ 4-3-115. Incomplete Instrument

  “Incomplete instrument” means a signed writing, whether or not issued by the signer, the contents of which show at the time of signing that it is incomplete but that the signer intended it to be completed by the addition of words or numbers.    Subject to subsection (c) of this section, if an incomplete instrument is an instrument under section 4-3-104, it may be enforced according to its terms if it is not completed, or according to its terms as augmented by completion. If an incomplete instrument is not an instrument under section 4-3-104, but, after completion, the requirements of section 4-3-104 are met, the instrument may be enforced according to its terms as augmented by completion.    If words or numbers are added to an incomplete instrument without authority of the signer, there is an alteration of the incomplete instrument under section 4-3-407.    The burden of establishing that words or numbers were added to an incomplete instrument without authority of the signer is on the person asserting the lack of authority.     History. Source: L. 94: Entire article R&RE, p. 847, § 1, effective January 1, 1995.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 4-3-115 as it existed prior to 1994.   OFFICIAL COMMENT   1. This section generally carries forward the rules set out in former Section 3-115. The term “incomplete instrument” applies both to an “instrument,” i.e. a writing meeting all the requirements of Section 3-104, and to a writing intended to be an instrument that is signed but lacks some element of an instrument. The test in both cases is whether the contents show that it is incomplete and that the signer intended that additional words or numbers be added.   2. If an incomplete instrument meets the requirements of Section 3-104 and is not completed it may be enforced in accordance with its terms. Suppose, in the following two cases, that a note delivered to the payee is incomplete solely because a space on the pre-printed note form for the due date is not filled in:   Case #1. If the incomplete instrument is never completed, the note is payable on demand. Section 3-108(a)(ii). However, if the payee and the maker agreed to a due date, the maker may have a defense under Section 3-117 if demand for payment is made before the due date agreed to by the parties.   Case #2. If the payee completes the note by filling in the due date agreed to by the parties, the note is payable on the due date stated. However, if the due date filled in was not the date agreed to by the parties there is an alteration of the note. Section 3-407 governs the case.   Suppose Debtor pays Creditor by giving Creditor a check on which the space for the name of the payee is left blank. The check is an instrument but it is incomplete. The check is enforceable in its incomplete form and it is payable to bearer because it does not state a payee. Section 3-109(a)(2). Thus, Creditor is a holder of the check. Normally in this kind of case Creditor would simply fill in the space with Creditor's name. When that occurs the check becomes payable to the Creditor.   3. In some cases the incomplete instrument does not meet the requirements of Section 3-104. An example is a check with the amount not filled in. The check cannot be enforced until the amount is filled in. If the payee fills in an amount authorized by the drawer the check meets the requirements of Section 3-104 and is enforceable as completed. If the payee fills in an unauthorized amount there is an alteration of the check and Section 3-407 applies.   4. Section 3-302(a)(1) also bears on the problem of incomplete instruments. Under that section a person cannot be a holder in due course of the instrument if it is so incomplete as to call into question its validity. Subsection (d) of Section 3-115 is based on the last clause of subsection (2) of former Section 3-115.   ANNOTATION   No ratification by principal. Where an agent gives a joint note of his principal and himself and deposits the money borrowed to the principal's credit, all without the principal's knowledge, to make good a shortage in the agent's account, there is no ratification by the principal, although the money is used for the principal's account. Rizzuto v. R. W. English Lumber Co., 44 Colo. 413 , 98 P. 728 (decided under repealed laws antecedent to CSA, C. 112, § 15, negotiable instruments law).