15-1. Bearer Instruments. Gilbert Ramirez claimed that he had purchased a winning lottery ticket, the prize for which was approximately $1.5 million. Unfortunately, Ramirez had lost the ticket itself and therefore could not claim the prize. Even though the evidence indicated that he very likely was indeed the purchaser of the winning ticket, under the state lottery rules, he could not claim the prize unless he produced the winning ticket. In a legal action brought by Ramirez against the state lottery bureau, Ramirez claimed, among other things, that the lottery ticket was a negotiable instrument because on the back of each lottery ticket were the following words: THIS TICKET IS A BEARER INSTRUMENT SO TREAT IT AS IF IT WERE CASH. Because the owner of a lost negotiable instrument can collect on the instrument if certain requirements are metsuch as establishing proof of ownership, the terms of the instrument, and so onRamirez argued that he should be allowed to claim the prize if he could meet these requirements. Discuss fully whether Ramirez will succeed in his claim that the lottery ticket was a negotiable instrument. [Ramirez v. Bureau of State Lottery, 186 Mich.App. 275, 463 N.W.2d 245 (1990)]

15-2. Requirements for Negotiation. 1601 Partners, Ltd., executed a promissory note in the amount of $1,650,000. As collateral for the loan represented by the note, 1601 Partners executed a deed of trust (a mortgage) for certain property owned by 1601 Partners. The note stated that the terms, agreements and conditions of [the deed of trust] are by reference made part of the note. Southmark subsequently assigned the note to San Jacinto Savings Association (SJSA). When 1601 Partners failed to make the payments due under the note, SJSA sold the collateral property for $1,050,000. SJSA subsequently failed, and the Resolution Trust Corp. (RTC) took over its accounts. To recover the deficiency between the amount of the loan and the price that the collateral sold for, the RTC filed a lawsuit against 1601 Partners and others. One of the issues before the court was whether the note was negotiable. The defendants argued that it was not, because it incorporated the terms of the deed of trust. How should the court rule on this issue? Discuss. [Resolution Trust Corp. v. 1601 Partners, Ltd., 796 F.Supp. 238 (N.D.Tex. 1992)]