Cases considering the scope of a future advance clause in an Article 9 security agreement have developed a range of approaches to the question, giving different weight to the following factors:  (1) the clarity and conspicuousness of the clause; (2) whether the contract was an adhesion contract; (3) whether the original debt and the subsequent (i.e. future) debt were related to one another; (4) whether the original debt and the subsequent debt were of the same class.  In re James, 221 B.R. 760 (Bkrtcy W.D. Wis.1968) canvasses these approaches.  But see Official Comment 5 to Revised U.C.C. 9-204.