Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.05 (2026)

Unconditional promise or order - UCC 3-106

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A) Except as provided in this section, for the purposes of division (A) of section 1303.03 of the Revised Code, a promise or order is unconditional unless it states any of the following:

(1) An express condition to payment;

(2) That the promise or order is subject to or governed by another record ;

(3) That rights or obligations with respect to the promise or order are stated in another record. A reference to another record does not of itself make the promise or order conditional.

(B) A promise or order is not made conditional by a reference to another record for a statement of rights with respect to collateral, prepayment, or acceleration or because payment is limited to resort to a particular fund or source.

(C) If a promise or order requires, as a condition to payment, a countersignature by a person whose specimen signature appears on the promise or order, the condition does not make the promise or order conditional for the purposes of division (A) of section 1303.03 of the Revised Code. If the person whose specimen signature appears on an instrument fails to countersign the instrument, the failure to countersign is a defense to the obligation of the issuer, but the failure does not prevent a transferee of the instrument from becoming a holder of the instrument.

(D) If a promise or order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder contains a statement, required by applicable statutory or administrative law, to the effect that the rights of a holder or transferee are subject to claims or defenses that the issuer could assert against the original payee, the promise or order is not made conditional by that statement for the purposes of division (A) of section 1303.03 of the Revised Code, but, if the promise or order is an instrument, there cannot be a holder in due course of the instrument.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1985–2013 · leading case: Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Najar, 2013 Ohio 1657 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Najar, 2013 Ohio 1657 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “{¶50} R.C. 1303.05 provides, in relevant part: (A) * * * for the purposes of division (A) of section 1303.”
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Camp, 825 N.E.2d 644 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “The statute states: *787 {¶ 10} “(A) Subject to division (C) of this section and division (D) of section 1303.05 of the Revised Code, ‘holder in due course’ means the holder of an instrument if both of the following apply: {¶ 11} “(1) The instrument when issued or negotiated to…”
Mohammad v. Awadallah, 2012 Ohio 3455 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “03(A) defines a negotiable instrument, in part, as an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount of money that (1) is payable to bearer, (2) is payable on demand or at a definite time, and (3) may contain the power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment.”
Murello Constr. Co. v. Citizens Home Sav. Co., 505 N.E.2d 637 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). “R.C. 1303.05, Official Comment 1. This argument is without *336 merit.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.05(A): 1 case
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Najar, 2013 Ohio 1657 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶50} R.C. 1303.05 provides, in relevant part: (A) * * * for the purposes of division (A) of section 1303.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.05(B): 2 cases
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Najar, 2013 Ohio 1657 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶50} R.C. 1303.05 provides, in relevant part: (A) * * * for the purposes of division (A) of section 1303.”
Mohammad v. Awadallah, 2012 Ohio 3455 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “03(A) defines a negotiable instrument, in part, as an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount of money that (1) is payable to bearer, (2) is payable on demand or at a definite time, and (3) may contain the power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.