Final answer:
Sopan, who received a negotiable note as a gift from Nami, who was a holder in due course, can claim the rights of a holder in due course despite not giving consideration herself. Sopan's legal status is not a holder in due course, but she does have the rights of a holder in due course.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question concerns the concept of a holder in due course within the context of negotiable instruments law. When Ted gave Stanley a $300 negotiable note for car repairs, and Stanley failed to perform the repairs but endorsed the note to Nami, who was unaware of the breach of contract, a series of endorsements began. Nami later gifted the note to Sopan. Sopan, who received the note as a gift, attempts to collect on the note.
Sopan's legal status would likely be a holder in due course (HDC) depending on if she meets the strict requirements. Those requirements generally stipulate that the holder must have taken the instrument for value, in good faith, and without notice of any defects or claims against it. However, since Sopan received the note as a gift, which does not normally involve giving value, she would typically not be considered a holder in due course. But, since Nami obtained the note without knowledge of Stanley's lack of performance, Nami could be considered a holder in due course, and those HDC rights would be transferred to Sopan even though Sopan didn't give value herself. Therefore, the correct answer would be: a. Sopan is not a holder in due course, but has the rights of a holder in due course because the rights of an HDC can pass to subsequent holders even if no new consideration is given.