4. Analyzes the scenario to see if the factual elements referred to above are present. If we see the law of sales prevailing, we can easily determine that Jordan has a strong case. Apart from this as per the law of sales, the probability of winning the case is more for the party which has theinitial buying bills. As theoriginal buying bills are not with the bank, thus the claim of Jordan will be given more importancein the court In comparison to the claim of Marlie, the claim of Jordan is also heavy as Marlie does not have any significant evidence apart from the claim that there was a deal between the two. 5. Concludes concerning the strength of Jordan's claim based on the analysis above. If the agreement is a true consignment, Jordan must prove it in the court with his documents. His agreement with Marlie not to pay in 30 days, means that the items is being sold by Marlie on his behalf. This is his reason for not taking necessary steps to qualify as a purchase money security interest in inventory. If the arrangement is found not to be a consignment, Jordan could have claimed a purchase money security interest as a supplier of the chandeliers. Because chandeliers will be part of the inventory and he would have filed his financing statement before Marlie