You are definitely not alone. The Blaw questions are tricky but it helps to break them out:
Hunt has in his possession a negotiable instrument that was originally payable to the order of Carr. It was transferred to Hunt by a mere delivery by Drake, who took it from Carr in good faith in satisfaction of an antecedent debt. The back of the instrument read as follows: “Pay to the order of Drake in satisfaction of my prior purchase of a new video calculator, signed Carr.” Which of the following is correct?
For instance:
delivery by Drake, who took it from Carr in good faith in satisfaction of an antecedent debt<— good faith, for value (antecedent debt), without notice of any problems (defenses)..so, we know Drake is an HDC.
Since, it was originally payable to Carr and it is order paper “pay to order of Drake”, Drake has to sign it for Hunt to be an HDC, but, there is the Shelter Doctrine (r7-18) that allows people to claims rights of HDCs even though they aren't HDCs…confusing yes. Hope this helped a little 🙂
CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016