Court Opinion

ID: 9756061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:06:04.257021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:14.446815
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge,
dissenting:
The majority has presented the basic facts underlying the controversy presented in this appeal. It is my opinion, however, that the trial court should be affirmed since I believe the defense of failure of consideration is not available to appellant under the facts here presented.
Section 3-408 of the Uniform Commercial Code 1 provides:
“Want or failure of consideration is a defense as against any person not having the rights of a holder in due course, *498except that no consideration is necessary for an instrument or obligation thereon given in payment of or as security for an antecedent obligation of any kind.” (Emphasis supplied)
In my opinion, the above-cited section applies directly to the promissory nóte in this case and to the circumstances of the note. If no consideration is necessary, as I believe, then appellant may not utilize the defense of failure of consideration.
I. would affirm the order of April 28, 1978, denying the grant of a new trial.

. 12A P.S. § 3 — 408.