N.D. Cent. Code § 41-03-29

(7) Subsection (a)(2) equates value with the obtaining of a security interest or a nonjudicial lien in the instrument. The term “security interest” covers Article 9 cases in which an instrument is taken as collateral as well as bank collection cases in which a bank acquires a security interest under Section 4-210. The acquisition of a common-law or statutory banker’s lien is also value under subsection (a)(2). An attaching creditor or other person who acquires a lien by judicial proceedings does not give value for the purposes of subsection (a)(2).

(8) Subsection (a)(3) follows former Section 3-303(b) in providing that the holder takes for value if the instrument is taken in payment of or as security for an antecedent claim, even though there is no extension of time or other concession, and whether or not the claim is due. Subsection (a)(3) applies to any claim against any person; there is no requirement that the claim arise out of contract. In particular the provision is intended to apply to an instrument given in payment of or as security for the debt of a third person, even though no concession is made in return.

(9) Subsection (a)(4) and (5) restate former Section 3-303(c). They state generally recognized exceptions to the rule that an executory promise is not value. A negotiable instrument is value because it carries the possibility of negotiation to a holder in due course, after which the party who gives it is obliged to pay. The same reasoning applies to any irrevocable commitment to a third person, such as a letter of credit issued when an instrument is taken.

(10) The term “promise” in paragraph (a)(1) is used in the phrase “promise of performance” and for that reason does not have the specialized meaning given that term in Section 3-103(a)(12). See Section 1-201 (“Changes from Former Law”). No inference should be drawn from the decision to use the phrase “promise of performance,” although the phrase does include the word “promise,” which has the specialized definition set forth in Section 3-103. Indeed, that is true even though “undertaking” is used instead of “promise” in Section 3-104(a)(3). See Section 3-104 comment 1 (explaining the use of the term “undertaking” in Section 3-104 to avoid use of the defined term “promise”). Amendments approved by the Permanent Editorial Board for Uniform Commercial Code November 2, 2002.