Opinion ID: 1187099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Negotiable Instruments Under Article 3 of the U.C.C.

Text: Article 3 of the U.C.C. defines a certain type of readily transferable instrument and lays down certain rules for the treatment of that instrument and rules concerning the rights, remedies and defenses of persons dealing with it. In order to be a negotiable instrument for Article 3 purposes the paper must precisely meet the definition set out in § 3-104, since § 3-104 itself states that, to be a negotiable instrument, a writing must meet the definition therein set out. Moreover, it is clear that in order to determine whether an instrument meets that definition only the instrument itself may be looked to, not other documents, even when other documents are referred to in the instrument. Carper v. Kanawha Banking & Trust Co., W. Va., 207 S.E.2d 897 (1974); Walls v. Morris Chevrolet, Inc., 515 P.2d 1405 (Okl.Ct.App. 1973); see Circle v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 535 F.2d 583, 585 & 588 (10th Cir.1976). As Hart & Willier, 2 Bender's U.C.C. Service, Commercial Paper, § 2.03[1] points out in its text and in footnote 3: The applicability of Article 3 must be determined from the instrument itself, without reference to other documents or oral agreements. The four-corners test is still applicable: the determination of negotiability under Article 3 must be made by inspecting only the instrument itself... . This is clear from the mandatory language of U.C.C. § 3-104, and from the following language from the Official Comment to U.C.C. § 3-105 found under the heading Purposes of Changes: The section is intended to make it clear that, so far as negotiability is affected, the conditional or unconditional character of the promise or order is to be determined by what is expressed in the instrument itself... . We recognize the Official Comments to the U.C.C. as persuasive, though they are not controlling authority. Burchett v. Allied Concord Financial Corp., 74 N.M. 575, 396 P.2d 186 (1964). Section 3-104 thus requires that, in order to be a negotiable instrument for Article 3 purposes, one must be able to ascertain without reference to other documents that the instrument: (a) [is] signed by the maker or drawer; and (b) contain[s] an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money and no other promise, order, obligation or power given by the maker or drawer except as authorized by [Article 3]; and (c) [is] payable on demand or at a definite time; and (d) [is] payable to order or to bearer. Carper, supra, Walls, supra . The note in question here failed to meet the requirements of § 3-104, since the promise to pay contained in the note was not unconditional. Moreover, the note was expressly drafted to be non-negotiable since it stated: This note may not be transferred, pledged, or otherwise assigned without the written consent of M.S. Horne. These words, even though they appeared on the back of the note, effectively cancelled any implication of negotiability provided by the words Pay to the order of on the face of the note. Notations and terms on the back of a note, made contemporaneously with the execution of the note and intended to be part of the note's contract of payment, constitute as much a part of the note as if they were incorporated on its face. Williams v. Wisowaty, 2 Ill. App.3d 400, 276 N.E.2d 424 (1971). Counsel argue that § 3-119 applies and allows incorporating other documents to remove the defects on the face of the instrument. They argue that Horne's separate letter to Clark authorizing the pledging of the note to First State removed the conditions in the note and the express prohibition therein against its negotiability and rendered the note negotiable for Article 3 purposes. This is incorrect. An instrument which in and of itself does not meet the requirements of § 3-104 cannot be made negotiable for Article 3 purposes by reference to another document which purports to cure the defects in the note's negotiability. Carper, supra, Walls, supra . Section 3-119 and the Official Comments thereto go only to clarifying what the effect is of referring to other documents which may affect negotiability where such reference is on the face of an otherwise negotiable instrument. See U.C.C. § 3-119, Official Comment, Purposes. Neither § 3-119 nor any other U.C.C. section applies to allow the use of other documents to correct defects in otherwise non-negotiable instruments. The whole purpose of the concept of a negotiable instrument under Article 3 is to declare that transferees in the ordinary course of business are only to be held liable for information appearing in the instrument itself and will not be expected to know of any limitations on negotiability or changes in terms, etc., contained in any separate documents. The whole idea of the facilitation of easy transfer of notes and instruments requires that a transferee be able to trust what the instrument says, and be able to determine the validity of the note and its negotiability from the language in the note itself. 2 Bender's U.C.C. Service supra, § 2.03[1]. See Carlos v. Fancourt, 5 Term Rep. 482 (1794). Section 3-119 and comments thereunder serve to clarify that a holder of an instrument which refers to another document need not inform himself of conditions in that document unless he has notice of the particular limitation contained therein. Thus, as the comment clarifies, a holder can remain a holder in due course in spite of a reference to another document on the face of an otherwise negotiable instrument. Section 3-119 in no way implies or states, and neither do any comments thereunder, that an instrument non-negotiable on its face can be cured by reference to a document removing the defect which renders the instrument non-negotiable. Carper, supra, Walls, supra . Since the note in question is not negotiable for Article 3 purposes, First State cannot be a holder in due course under Article 3, Carper, supra, and we need not discuss that issue.