On October 12, 2003, Evergreen, a clothing company in Illinois, purchased 20 farm bales of wool from Farmhand, Inc. with the promise of delivery on December 10. On October 15, Evergreen issued two checks for the wool, totaling $40,000, to Farmhand. Farmhand subsequently endorsed the checks over to Bromley & Son, a law firm based in Springfield, as a retainer for future legal services. Bromley deposited the checks on October 22 and Farmhand failed the two days later, thereby failing to deliver the bales of wool to Evergreen. On October 25, Bromley was notified that Evergreen had stopped payment on the checks. Bromley then filed a complaint against Evergreen, alleging that it was entitled to the proceeds of the checks, plus pre-judgment interest, as a holder in due course. Bromley moved for summary judgment but the motion was denied. Bromley contended that in Illinois a contract for future legal services should be treated differently than other executory contracts. It contended that when the attorney-client relationship is created by payment of a fee or retainer, the contract is no longer executory. Thus, Bromley would achieve holder in due course status. The Illinois Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) defines a holder in due course as: the holder of an instrument if: (1) the instrument when issued does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity, and (2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, ... Section 3-303(a) of the UCC also states that: (a) An instrument is issued or transferred for value if: (1) the instrument is issued or transferred for a promise of performance, to the extent that the promise has been performed.

Taking the above into account, would you affirm or reject the judgement of the court? Why