Broadway Management Corporation obtained a judgment against Briggs. The note on which the judgment was based reads in part:
Broadway Management Corporation obtained a judgment against Briggs. The note on which the judgment was based reads in part: ” Ninety Days after date, I, we, or either of us, promise to pay to the order of Three Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Eight and 45/100 ___ Dollars.” ( The underlined words and symbols were typed in; the remainder was printed. ) There are no blanks on the face of the instrument, any unused space having been filled in with hyphens. The note contains clauses permitting acceleration in the event the holder deems itself insecure and authorizes judgment “if this note is not paid at any stated or accelerated maturity.” Explain whether the note is negotiable order paper.
In this case, the note may not be considered negotiable and the settlement may be made in favor of Person B. A flexible instrument made payable to any person or company may not be a bearer paper, but an insufficient command instrument, unlawful until a payee's name has been mentioned. Here, the notation may be the command line, not holder paper because neither the advancement article nor the acknowledgement of settlement section is present that may demolish the flexibility of the note. It may be due to the fact that the wording of the passable tool may suggest that the payee's name needs to be inserted between the pledge and the amount. Since the holder could not be determined from the face of the tool, Company BM could not exercise the right of a holder to solicit the confession of settlement.