Critical thinking : What are the factual elements that caused the contract not to be payable to bearer? Ethical decision making: Which values are being given priority by the criteria are making an instrument negotiable? Please be descriptive in answer the critical thinking question and as well as the ethical decision making question. Thank you!

AMPLIFY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. GARCIA Court of Appeals of Texas: Court of Appeals, CASE 17-1 3'd District (2017) FACTS: In December 2008, Jason Garcia signed a motor limitations as opposed to the four-year statute of limitations vehicle sales contract with Mac Haik Dodge Chrysler Jeep, as ruled by the trial court. The court noted that Article 3 of a dealer. In the contract, Garcia agreed to purchase a 2009 the UCC is not intended to cover sales contracts. Thus, the Dodge Ram 1500. The contract includes Garcia's agreement instrument in question must be payable "to bearer" or "to to pay a total of $62,370 spread out over 84 monthly payments order" to be considered negotiable. of $742.50. Mac Haik Dodge Chrysler Jeep assigned the sales The UCC provides that an instrument is payable to contract to Amplify Federal Credit Union (AFCU). bearer if it states that it is payable to anyone in possession In 2010, after Garcia defaulted on payments, AFCU repos- of the instrument or does not state the payee. However, sessed the vehicle, sold it, and applied the proceeds to the the contract identifies Mac Haik Dodge Chrysler Jeep as remaining balance. Garcia still owed $20,711 on the sales the payee and was therefore not "payable to bearer." Nor agreement and continued to accrue interest. In 2015, AFCU was the contract "payable to order," as it provides only that sued Garcia to recover over $35,000 and Garcia responded by Garcia promises to pay Mac Haik Dodge Chrysler Jeep asserting AFCU's claim was barred by the statute of limita- the sales price for the vehicle. The court ruled that assign- tions. Both parties moved for summary judgement. The trial ing the rights of the contract to AFCU had no bearing on court granted Garcia's motion for summary judgement and whether the contract was a negotiable instrument. Because AFCU subsequently appealed. the contract was not a negotiable instrument, the four-year ISSUE: Was the sales contract a negotiable instrument statute of limitations was appropriate. Affirmed in favor of and therefore subject to a six-year statute of limitations? Garcia. DECISION: In its sole issue on appeal, AFCU argued SIGNIFICANCE: This case helps delineate the require- that the sales contract for the vehicle was a negotiable ments for negotiability and indicate what is and is not a instrument, which made it subject to a six-year statute of negotiable instrument