In exchange for an asphalt paving job, Paulick gave Bucci a note promising to pay to the order of Bucci $7,593 in six months with 10 percent per annum interest. Payment was not made on the due date, and Bucci brought suit.

Paulick used failure of consideration as a defense, claim ing that the paving job was improperly done.

The court held that Bucci was a holder in due course because he had taken the instrument for value, in good faith, and without notice of any claims or defenses of Paulick's .

Could Paulick use the defense of failure of consideration against Bucci ? Why or why not?

Bucci v. Paulick, 149 A.2d 1255 (PA).