Utah Code
Utah Code § 70A-3-303 (2026)
Value and consideration
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
An instrument is issued or transferred for value if:
the instrument is issued or transferred for a promise of performance, to the extent the promise has been performed;
the transferee acquires a security interest or other lien in the instrument other than a lien obtained by judicial proceeding;
the instrument is issued or transferred as payment of, or as security for, an antecedent claim against any person, whether or not the claim is due;
the instrument is issued or transferred in exchange for a negotiable instrument; or
the instrument is issued or transferred in exchange for the incurring of an irrevocable obligation to a third party by the person taking the instrument.
"Consideration" means any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract. The drawer or maker of an instrument has a defense if the instrument is issued without consideration. If an instrument is issued for a promise of performance, the issuer has a defense to the extent performance of the promise is due and the promise has not been performed. If an instrument is issued for value as stated in Subsection (1), the instrument is also issued for consideration.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1972–2009 · leading case: Howick v. Bank of Salt Lake, 498 P.2d 352 (Utah 1972).
Howick v. Bank of Salt Lake, 498 P.2d 352 (Utah 1972). “The element of value appears to be established, Section 70A-3-303, U.C.A. 1953. "Good faith" is defined as honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned, Section 70A-1-201(19), U.”
Neve Welch Enter., Inc. v. United Bank, 628 P.2d 1295 (Utah 1981). “Section 70A-3-303 provides that one takes for value: (a) to the extent that the agreed consideration has been performed or that he acquires a security interest in or a lien on the instrument otherwise than by legal process; or (b) when he takes the instrument in payment of or as…”
Jubber v. Sleater (In Re Bedrock Mktg., LLC), 404 B.R. 929 (Bankr. D. Utah 2009). “Although no prior Utah case law has directly interpreted whether “antecedent claim” in § 70A-3-303 of the Utah Code is equivalent to an “antecedent debt,” the treatment of these two terms as synonymous is supported by the Utah Supreme Court’s treatment of the terms “claim” and…”
Peterson Plumbing Supply v. Bernson, 797 P.2d 473 (Utah Ct. App. 1990). “” 1 PPS contends that section 7-15-1 should instead be read in light of Utah Code Ann. §§ 70A-3-303 and -403 (1980) of the Uniform Commercial Code, to support its position that a negotiable instrument is given for value when given for payment of an antecedent obligation.”
Utah Code § 70A-3-303(l)(c): 1 case
Jubber v. Sleater (In Re Bedrock Mktg., LLC), 404 B.R. 929 (Bankr. D. Utah 2009). “Although no prior Utah case law has directly interpreted whether “antecedent claim” in § 70A-3-303 of the Utah Code is equivalent to an “antecedent debt,” the treatment of these two terms as synonymous is supported by the Utah Supreme Court’s treatment of the terms “claim” and…”
Utah Code § 70A-3-303(l)(c)(2008): 1 case
Jubber v. Sleater (In Re Bedrock Mktg., LLC), 404 B.R. 929 (Bankr. D. Utah 2009). “Although no prior Utah case law has directly interpreted whether “antecedent claim” in § 70A-3-303 of the Utah Code is equivalent to an “antecedent debt,” the treatment of these two terms as synonymous is supported by the Utah Supreme Court’s treatment of the terms “claim” and…”
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.