## Facts

- Harold L. France bought a tractor under a secured installment contract financed by Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford Credit), paying $2,000 down with the remainder due over time.
- France later attempted to pay off the remaining balance in a lump sum of $8,506.19 by sending an uncertified check to Ford Credit’s processing agent.
- The processing agent mis-encoded the first check for $506.19 instead of $8,506.19, and only $506.19 was collected.
- France then sent a second check intended to be $8,000, but it stated “Eight dollars and 00/100” in words; only $8 was collected.
- The second check also contained a stamp “Amount Guaranteed to Be” above a handwritten “$8,000,” but the record did not show who placed the stamp or notation on the check.
- After both checks, Ford Credit received $514.19 total toward the payoff; France refused to make further payments and asserted Ford Credit should seek any loss from the processor or banks.
- Ford Credit filed a replevin action to recover the tractor based on default under the installment contract.

## Issues

1. Whether UCC § 3-310(b)(1) (Ark. Code Ann. § 4-3-310(b)(1)) suspended France’s underlying obligation so as to bar Ford Credit’s replevin remedy after the checks were processed for less than the intended amounts.
2. Whether UCC § 4-209 (Ark. Code Ann. § 4-4-209) encoding and retention warranties required Ford Credit to pursue the encoding or banking entities instead of enforcing its security interest against France.
3. Whether the “Amount Guaranteed to Be” stamp and the handwritten “$8,000” on the second check (and/or the discrepancy between numeric and written amounts) relieved France of liability.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the replevin judgment for Ford Credit.
- UCC § 3-310(b)(1) did not provide France a defense because any suspension of the obligation ended when the checks were paid; the checks were paid only in lesser amounts, leaving an unpaid balance.
- UCC § 4-209 did not apply to Ford Credit as a payee; the statute’s warranties run to collecting and payor banks, not to payees.
- The court declined to consider the “amount guaranteed” and written-versus-numeric arguments because France failed to support them with authority or developed legal analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Tender of an uncertified check suspends the underlying obligation only until the check is paid, certified, or dishonored; payment of a check for less than the debt ends the suspension and leaves the remaining balance enforceable.
- UCC encoding and retention warranties under § 4-209 protect collecting and payor banks; a payee is not a beneficiary of those warranties for purposes of compelling the payee to proceed against banks or processors.
- Appellate courts may reject arguments that are unsupported by cited authority or convincing legal reasoning.

## Conclusion

Because the checks were processed and paid only in amounts far below the payoff, France’s debt was not satisfied, and the temporary UCC suspension doctrine did not bar Ford Credit from enforcing its security interest through replevin; Ford Credit also had no UCC duty under § 4-209 to pursue banks or processors instead of the debtor.


France v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 913 S.W.2d 770 (Ark. 1996)