On December 5, 2017, the Tursis defaulted on their promissory note to the Green Mountain Inn. On June 11, 2017, PP, Inc., formerly Green Mountain Inn, Inc., brought an action against the McGuires to recover on the note held as security for the Tursis' promissory note. Discuss whether the instrument is negotiable.

Question

Amara Owens

Engineering

4 December, 01:30

On December 5, 2017, the Tursis defaulted on their promissory note to the Green Mountain Inn. On June 11, 2017, PP, Inc., formerly Green Mountain Inn, Inc., brought an action against the McGuires to recover on the note held as security for the Tursis' promissory note. Discuss whether the instrument is negotiable.

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Lauren Preston · Answer 1

The note in this question is not an instrument that is negotiable under Article 3 of the U. C. C. Furthermore, it is not payable at any given time on demand due to the fact that principal repayment is not covered at a specified period of time. It shows that the acceleration clause is viable for the payment of the amount upon the default of the maker. This is also for an indefinite period of time.

Explanation:

The note in this question is not an instrument that is negotiable under Article 3 of the U. C. C. Furthermore, it is not payable at any given time on demand due to the fact that principal repayment is not covered at a specified period of time. It shows that the acceleration clause is viable for the payment of the amount upon the default of the maker. This is also for an indefinite period of time.