2005 Uniform commercial code survey: Introduction

Business Lawyer

Volumn 61, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 1541-1543

  Hakes, Russell A ^a   Sepinuck, Stephen L ^b   Meadows, Robyn L ^c  

^a Widener University School of Law   (United States)

^b WIDENER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c GONZAGA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845650931     PISSN: 00076899     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Colorado, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and West Virginia, see The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, UCC Article 1, General Provisions, Bill Tracking, available at http://www.nccusl.org (last visited May 15, 2006). Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
2. See Table of Enactments of 2001 Amendments (Revised Article 1), STATE UCC VARIATIONS, U.C.C. REP. SERV. (West), at xxvii (2006).
3. U.C.C. § 1-301(c) (2002) would permit the parties to choose the law of any jurisdiction, regardless of its connection with the transaction. U.C.C. § 1-105(1) (2000) required that the transaction bear a reasonable relationship to the jurisdiction before that jurisdiction's law could be chosen to govern the transaction.
4. Good faith was originally defined in Article 1 simply as "honesty in fact," U.C.C. § 1-201(19) (2000). For years. Article 2 had used a two pronged definition, "honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing," U.C.C. § 2-103(b) (2001). Consistent with the revision of other articles of the UCC which had moved to the two-pronged definition, see U.C.C. §§ 3-103, 4-104(c), 4A-105(a)(6), 8-102(a)(10), 9-102(a)(43) (2002), the expanded definition was included in the 2001 revision of Article 1.
5. Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, and Virginia have all chosen to retain current law on good faith, leaving the Article 1 standard in those jurisdictions the purely subjective "honesty in fact." See U.C.C. § 1-201 (19) (2000).
6. Arizona, Colorado, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and West Virginia, see The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, UCC Article 7, Bill Tracking, available at http://www. nccusl.org (last visited May 15, 2006). Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.
7. See Table of Enactments of 2003 Amendments (Revised Article 7), STATE UCC VARIATIONS, U.C.C. REP. SERV. (West), at xxix (2006).
8. From their promulgation in 2002 until this past year, only Minnesota has adopted the amended sections to Articles 3 and 4. See Table of Enactments of 2002 Amendments (Amendments to Revised Articles 3 and 4), STATE UCC VARIATIONS, U.C.C. REP. SERV. (West), at xxviii (2006).
9. Kentucky, see The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, UCC Articles 3 and 4, Bill Tracking, available at http://www.nccusl.org (last visited May 15, 2006).
10. See Sandra M. Rocks & Kate A. Sawyer, International Commercial Law: 2005 Developments, 61 BUS. LAW. 1633 (2006).
11. Id. at 1640.
12. Id. at 1642.
13. Id. at 1642.
14. The text of the act is available at the NCCUSL website, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/Docs/MTSTA/MTSTA_Mar06_Final.doc (last visited May 1, 2006).
15. See, e.g., MTSTA §§ 9-104 (not applicable to property not transferable under federal law), 9-117 (ability of parties to choose applicable law) (2005).
16. Information provided to the authors by Professor Carl S. Bjerre, National Conference Reporter for the Model Tribal Secured Transactions Act.
17. Id.
18. 106 P.3d 483, 56 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 586 (Kan. 2005)
19. 106 P.3d 483, 56 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 586 (Kan. 2005). This case is discussed in detail in Stephen C. Veltri, et al., Payments: 2005 Developments, 61 BUS. LAW. 1571, 1585 (2006).
20. UCC § 3-420(a) (2002).
21. See Veltri, supra note 16, at 1590, discussing Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty Ltd., 384 F. Supp. 2d 726 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), vacated, 2006 WL 2129336 (2d Cir. July 31, 2006).