George Sleater Case Summary

By securing the note as the company and as an individual, George is liable because he signed the note comprising particular verbosity to state that it was secured by him. George’s signature represents personal obligation and representational capacity. When a person’s signature is signed on a document or contract that person holds the responsibility of the outcome in either a positive or negative way. So in this case George will have to hold all the responsibility on his behalf. Moreover, even though the stationary on the note was type it still shows that George is the president of the corporation.
As it seems to me, Mr Sleater was the manager of Atlas Capital and he was the one that signed the two promissory note for the value of 4,000,000 as the maker of the notes. The blocks of notes read “Weston Wade Sleater & Atlas Marketing Group, L.C,” but the signature was only done and signed by Mr Sleater which made him the maker of the note that he failed to pay. So Mr Sleater should be held accountable for any inconvenience that was make with the note. If another person’s signature was with his both people would be held accountable due to the fact two signature that may have let him off the hook by failing to pay for the note and let someone else be held accountable. In this case it may be a possibility that the person that suit the company may either go after Mr Sleater’s personal assets or the company’s assets if they fail to make the payment due to bankruptcy.
Yes, I believe that the instrument is negotiable due to the fact that the warrant meets the requirements for a negotiable instrument as it contained a signature, it was in physical writing and had a specific sum that included a date that the promise to on at that specific time.
Due to meeting all of these requirements the instrument becomes
negotiable.
No, to some extent I do not believe that the note written for payee is negotiable. However, there are a few things that was included such as the makers signature and the installment plan but contain or negotiate about the payment plan that are supposed to be paid on which specific day. For the plan to be negotiable from the maker they would have to set out an outline when the payment plan date should be set so the payments can be made.

In this case the note is not a promissory not because to have a negotiable instrument he/she must have a statement that has to have promise to pay provision. However, for example by using the term “I owe Peter” is not a promise to pay someone even though it can be a reasonable negotiation that inferred from it. Using the terms “I promise to pay to the order of Peter” is a better way of a negotiable instrument.