Elliot, an officer of Impact Marketing, drew six postdated checks on Impact$$s account. The checks were payable to Bell for legal services to be subsequently performed for Impact. Financial Associates purchased them from Bell and collected on four of the checks. Payment was stopped on the last two when Bell$$s services were terminated. Financial argued that it was a holder in due course and had the right to collect on the checks. Impact claimed that because the checks were postdated and issued for an executory promise, Financial could not be a holder in due course. Who was correct? Why? $[$Financial Associates v$.$ Impact Marketing, $394$ N$.$Y$.$S$\mathrm{.}2$d $814]$