|
Ummm,
What are you guys trying to apply the term "Taking for Value" to? I am getting the feeling that you guys are mixing or confusing things up a bit.
Jean Keating came to understand that there is NO Holder in Due course upon a promissory note because the true issue over the promissory note is OWNERSHIP of the ASSET and OWNERSHIP of the DEBT contained within the promissory note.
A promissory note is like a coin. It has a heads and a tails side. A debt side and an asset side! Who owns what is decided by who does what!
Did the bank give you their money in return for ownership over the asset side? If they did then they are the asset owner! If not, then you are the asset and debt side owner!
A promissory note is a debt security! What is a security? It is a financial asset with an underlying debt! If you are the issuer of the note and a second party accepts it for deposit into a securities account, then you are the Owner of both side of it.
One can only become a holder in due course by becoming the OWNER! YOU ARE THE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE IF NOONE PURCHASED THE ASSET!
The "value" in take for value can be anything, but in most case it is the debtor's "PROMISE" that is the value.
Start understanding that "bank loans", and I use that term very looosely, in its true sense is NOT an actual loan per say but actually is a "payment order" done by you through the bank. They just dont tell you about it!
To get a better understanding of whats going on, read article 8 then go back and read article 4. This will differentiate negotiable instruments from instruments!
Promissory notes are not negotiable instruments! They are securities! They are monetary instruments! You must distinguish between the two!
dashboy~
__________________
I just figured it out! It's all for free!
|
