Business Law Case Studies
Student’s Name

Question one
The answer to this question is that the promissory note was concluded to be an order to pay.
Mrs. McGuire entered into a purchase and sale agreement for “Becca’s Boutique” utilizing a standard real estate purchase and sale form on August 17, 1979 with the help from colleagues in her real estate office. Mrs. McGuire and her husband promised to pay buy the boutique store for $75,000. At first they paid a down payment of $10,000 and therefore the balance that was due to be paid on October 5, 1979 was $65,000. Moreover, it was allegedly agreed that the sale was contingent upon Mrs. McGuire and her husband acquiring a Small Business loan in the remaining amount of $65,000. This was the commitment for which it shall be received on or before October 5, 1979 or otherwise the agreement should become null and void and all the amount of money returned to Mrs. McGuire and her husband, unless time is extended by the seller. Mrs. McGuire signed the agreement although it was allegedly said that she forged her husband signature to the document without her husband’s consent.
Additionally, according to the security clause towards the agreement, the promissory note indicated that “pay to the order of Green Mountain Inn, Inc. with recourse”. There were signatures and date, September 7, 1979 for Mr. and Mrs. Tursi in the agreement. Besides, Parker Perry stated that he recalled receiving the Tursis’s promissory note but did not remember receiving McGuire’s promissory note as the security for the agreement. Perry Parker’s attorney handled all the financial issues that were connected to the sale of Green Mountain Inn. Perry also asserted that he never McGuires prior to receiving the promissory note but he knew that the Tursis wanted to sell their two boutique shops.

Question two
Answer: Yes the promissory note is a negotiable instrument
The whole action of the promissory note was brought forward by the plaintiff, the bank, Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank against the defendant, William Bailey. The defendant executed a promissory note in December, 1982 in favor of the California Dreamstreet which was a joint venture that solicited investments in a cattle-breeding process. California Dreamstreet negotiated the promissory note in 1986 to the bank, which later turned the action on August 29, 1988. There was a very important part in the note which stated that Dr. William H. Bailey promised to pay the order to CALIFORNIA DREAMSTREET a sum of $329,000.
Therefore, the court with all the reasons that were found, declared that the promissory note which was subject to the action was a negotiable instrument. Furthermore, the court ordered that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied without biasness to its being renewed upon the completion of the discovery.
Question three
Answer: It was concluded, in favor of the defendants, that the check was not a negotiable instrument.
A check is not considered a negotiable instrument if the drawer writes on it a promise, order, obligation or power which, when analyzed on its face, in any way restricts the drafter’s unconditional promise to pay. In addition, both parties did not disagree that the check is usually a negotiable instrument. Moreover, defendants resisted that the note that the Paracha wrote on the check destroyed the negotiability agreement.
According to the defendants, a negotiable instrument must be unconditional promise, or order to pay and must not containing other promise or power or obligation except as endorsed by the article. Additionally, defendants also argued that the notation makes a check a conditional promise to pay because it makes the check subject to, or ruled by, another agreement. Defendants also argued that the note was so irregular that a person would be put on notice of the check’s restricted purpose, and may discover that the check is actually not a negotiable instrument. But on the other side, Carador declares that the check is a negotiable instrument because the notation indicated that $33,000 was conveyed from defendants to Al-Bark as security for presentation of a contract.
Question Four
It was concluded that Kalbe won the case because he was awarded $7,260 that represented the overdraft. Although he did not challenge the amount of money that he was awarded,