Peter Gowin was an employee of a granite countertop business owned by Joann Stathis. In November 2022, Gowin signed a promissory note agreeing to pay

$12,500 in order to become a co-owner of the business. The note was dated January 15, 2022 (ten months before it was signed), and required him to make installment payments starting in February 2022. Stathis told Gowin not to worry about the note and never requested any payments. Gowin continued to work at the business until 2024, when he quit, claiming that he owned half of the business. Stathis argued that Gowin was not a co-owner because he had never paid the $12,500 into the business. (See Formation of Negotiable Instruments.)

1. The first group will argue in favor of Stathis that Gowin did not own any interest in the business.

2. The second group will evaluate the strength of Gowin’s argument. Gowin claimed that because compliance with the stated dates was impossible, the note effectively did not state a date for its payment. It therefore was a demand note under UCC 3–108(a). Because no demand for payment had been made, Gowin’s obligation to pay had not arisen, and the termination of his ownership interest was improper.

3. The third group will create a list with expanation and examples detailing under what circumstances oral statements by Stathis to Gowin can be enforced or can be used as a defense by Gowin.