Definition
NEGOTIATION carries two distinct legal meanings that must be kept separate.
1. Bargaining and agreement-formation. The deliberation, discussion, or conference between parties concerning the terms of a proposed agreement — a sale, contract, settlement, or other transaction. Negotiation in this sense is the process that precedes a binding agreement. What passes between parties during negotiation is generally not part of the final agreement itself, and the parol evidence rule limits how much of that pre-contract exchange can later be introduced to vary or contradict a written instrument.
2. Transfer of a negotiable instrument. The act of putting a negotiable instrument — a check, promissory note, bill of exchange, or similar document — into circulation by delivery or indorsement. Negotiation in this technical commercial-law sense transforms the transferee into a holder, and potentially into a holder in due course, with rights superior to those of prior parties. This is the meaning operative in Articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The process of achieving agreement through discussion.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The act or process of negotiating; treating with another respecting sale or purchase; mercantile business generally; also, the transaction of business between nations by diplomatic agents.
The common meaning captures only the first legal definition and misses the second entirely. A researcher encountering "negotiation" in a commercial or banking context — particularly in instruments law — must recognize that the word describes a specific legal act of transfer with defined formal requirements, not merely a conversation. The everyday sense of "talking things out" gives no warning that negotiation of a check, for instance, has consequences that attach to the instrument itself and bind subsequent holders.
---
Common Confusion
The two definitions above are frequently collapsed. Lawyers writing about contract formation use "negotiation" loosely to mean any pre-contract dealing. Commercial-law sources use it with precision to mean a completed transfer vesting holder status. Conflating them produces real errors: something can be transferred without being negotiated in the technical UCC sense (a mere assignment, for example), and parties can negotiate a contract's terms without any instrument ever being negotiated. Keep the contexts distinct.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Negotiation of instruments takes two forms depending on whether the instrument is order paper or bearer paper:
- Negotiation by indorsement and delivery (order instruments): An instrument payable to a named payee requires the payee's indorsement plus physical delivery to constitute negotiation.
- Negotiation by delivery alone (bearer instruments): An instrument payable to bearer passes by delivery without indorsement.
In contract and dispute contexts, negotiation may be:
- Direct negotiation: Parties deal with each other without intermediaries.
- Assisted negotiation: A neutral third party (mediator, facilitator) is present but the decision-making authority remains with the parties. Distinguished from arbitration, where a third party decides.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The dual meaning is the central trap. An older case or treatise using "negotiation" without context could mean either the commercial transfer or the contract-formation process. Pay attention to the subject matter: instruments law sources almost always mean meaning 2; contract and diplomatic sources almost always mean meaning 1.
In evidence research, negotiation as bargaining intersects directly with Rule 408 (Federal Rules of Evidence) and its state analogs, which protect statements made during compromise negotiations from admission as evidence of liability. Identifying whether communications occurred "in negotiation" — and whether that negotiation was directed toward compromise of a disputed claim — is often the analytical crux. The phrase "settlement negotiations" has its own evidentiary significance distinct from generic pre-contract bargaining.
In instruments law, negotiation is a term of art with formal requirements. Failure to satisfy them means the transferee is an assignee, not a holder — a difference that can strip the transferee of holder-in-due-course protections and expose them to personal defenses that would otherwise be cut off. Historical cases sometimes blur this line, and older decisions using "transfer" and "negotiation" interchangeably should be read with care.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry signals a third, archaic dimension: negotiation as general commercial treaty or business transaction. This usage appears in older mercantile and diplomatic sources and corresponds to the Webster's 1913 "mercantile business" sense. It is essentially obsolete in modern legal writing but appears in 19th-century case law and treatises.
Bouvier's observation about parol evidence — that what transpires in negotiation makes no part of the agreement unless introduced into it — remains a foundational principle, though the rule has been heavily modified by exceptions that Bouvier himself noted. Researchers working in contract interpretation should treat Bouvier's formulation as a starting point, not a terminus.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The three historical dictionaries converge cleanly on meaning 1 (deliberation leading to agreement) and meaning 2 (transfer of instruments), with some variation in emphasis.
Black's (2nd Ed.) is the most practically structured, placing both meanings side by side without hierarchy. It is the most useful of the three as a quick navigational tool.
Bouvier goes deeper on the evidentiary consequences of pre-contract negotiation — the parol evidence limitation — which reflects Bouvier's contract-law orientation. His entry is the most useful for researchers working in 19th-century contract disputes, but it omits the instruments-transfer meaning almost entirely, a notable gap for a dictionary of his era.
Rapalje & Lawrence is the least useful of the three for this term. The entry as preserved is fragmentary, appearing to have been excerpted mid-thought, and its citation to 19 Ind. 247 concerns an agent's obligation to bring skill to a business transaction, which is peripheral to negotiation as a concept. The entry does flag the public/private treaty distinction ("whether public or private"), echoing the diplomatic usage found in Webster's 1913.
None of the three dictionaries fully anticipates the UCC framework for instruments negotiation, which postdates them. Researchers should not rely on any of these sources for the elements of holder-in-due-course analysis or the formal requirements of UCC Article 3.
---
Jurisdictional Note
For instruments law, UCC Article 3 has been adopted in all U.S. jurisdictions, with Louisiana's adoption the last and most qualified. The formal requirements for negotiation are substantially uniform. For negotiation as a dispute-resolution process, state rules on the admissibility of settlement communications vary from the federal Rule 408 standard, particularly on whether conduct (as opposed to statements) is protected and whether the rule applies in criminal proceedings.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
contracts_150: Negotiable Instruments — Requirements for Negotiability (S3-104) — essential background for understanding what qualifies as a negotiable instrument before negotiation in the technical sense can occur.
contracts_152: Negotiable Instruments — Negotiation, Indorsement, and Transfer (S3-201 through 3-206) — direct treatment of negotiation as a legal act, holder status, and the indorsement requirements.
civpro_147: Compromise Offers and Negotiations — Rule 408 — governing the evidentiary treatment of statements made during settlement negotiation.
---