Uniform Commercial Code

[06/25] BRASHER'S CASCADE AUTO AUCTION v. VALLEY AUTO SALES AND LEASING
The former version of the California Uniform Commercial Code requires a merchant buyer to adhere to reasonable commercial standards to obtain the status of a buyer in the ordinary course of business for purposes of section 9307.

[05/26] PROPULSION TECHS. v. ATWOOD CORP.
An agreement to manufacture boat parts is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds as a transaction in goods with no ascertainable quantity term, thus the claim for fraud in the inducement cannot survive.

[04/12] CHATSKY & ASSOCS. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY (BANK OF AM. CORP.)
The one-year limitations period of Code of Civil Procedure section 340(c), rather than the three-year limitations period of California Uniform Commercial Code section 4111, applies to claims by depositors against their bank for payment of forged checks written on the depositors' accounts.

[01/22] HICKS v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (KAUFMAN & BROAD HOME CORP.)
If set forth in conspicuous and understandable language, a disclaimer of the implied warranty of quality is enforceable. The trial court correctly concluded that written disclaimers in the sales and express warranty documents provided to the home buyers preclude their claim for breach of implied warranty.

[12/19] DALLAS AEROSPACE, INC. v. CIS AIR CORP.
Summary judgment was properly granted to defendant on claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. The sale contract for a used aircraft engine had not been modified; its terms were not unconscionable; it disclaimed any representation as to the engine's airworthiness, which was in any event easily discoverable by plaintiff; no special relationship existed between the parties.

[12/15] MOCEK v. ALFA LEISURE, INC.
Although a different rule may apply where there is a breach of an express warranty, there is no requirement that the seller be given an opportunity to repair when the implied warranty of merchantability is breached.

[12/12] VOELKER v. PORSCHE CARS N. AM., INC.
Under state law, as an assignee of a New Car Limited Warranty, lessee plaintiff was entitled to enforce the rights arising from that Warranty, thus he qualifies as a category three consumer per section 2301(3) of the Magnuson-Moss Act. District court's dismissal of his claim for breach of written warranty under that statute is reversed.

[11/17] CENTRAL ILL LIGHT CO. v.CONSOL. COAL CO.
In a breach of contract action, summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to comply with the Uniform Commercial Code's statute of frauds.

[11/12] TOM-LIN ENTER. v. SUNOCO, INC.
In an action alleging a violation of defendant's open price term obligations, summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where plaintiffs have failed to establish that defendant's DTW prices were commercially unreasonable or that its setting of rack prices relative to the DTW prices was commercially unjustifiable.

[11/06] AM. ROAD SERV. CO. v. CONSOL. RAIL CORP.
In a subrogation action against seeking compensation for damaged property, summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the district court properly concluded that plaintiff's complaint was untimely.

[11/03] VOELKER v. PORSCHE CARS N. AM, INC.
District court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims for breach of written warranty and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is reversed as to the breach of written warranty claim, and affirmed as to all others where plaintiff has stated a claim as a "category three" consumer.

[10/28] HOLDEN FARMS, INC. v. HOG SLAT, INC.
In a case where plaintiffs are suing up the stream of commerce, breach of contract claim was properly dismissed because the one-year limitation for bringing the suit against the direct seller of the hog nurseries in question had expired.

[10/10] JOHN HANCOCK FIN. SERV., INC. v. OLD KENT BANK
In a case involving claims of common law conversion, UCC statutory conversion, and negligence, 1) the district court properly declined to apply UCC section 3-406's preclusion defense to plaintiff's conversion claim, 2) Michigan's Tort Reform Act does not apply to UCC conversion actions, and 3) the "discovery rule" does not apply where a party not engaging in fraudulent concealment asserts the statute of limitations defense.

[09/19] REGIONS BANK v. THE PROVIDENT BANK, INC.
U.C.C. Article 4A does not preempt a state law claim if money is transferred by wire to a party that knows or should have known that the funds were obtained illegally, but plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant had or should have had such knowledge.

[09/02] SCADIF, S.A. v. FIRST UNION NAT'L
Florida's Uniform Commercial Code "midnight deadline rule" is not applicable to the facts where parties agreed that a check at issue was sent to defendant as a collection item and not presented for payment; thus, district court properly entered judgment for defendant.

[07/31] HESS ENERGY, INC. v. LIGHTNING OIL CO., LTD.
Under the Virginia Uniform Commercial Code, in an anticipatory breach scenario, the measure of damages is calculated using the market price as of the date of delivery rather than as of the date plaintiff learned that defendant would not perform.

[07/28] IN RE: DOCTORS HOSP. OF HYDE PARK, INC.
Through the Illinois Comptroller Act, the legislature intended to give the state priority over assignees of state contracts in the event of bankruptcy, and that specific intention overrides the provisions of the UCC, which give no special weight to the interest of the state.

[06/24] WORTLEY v. CAMPLIN
District court finding that plaintiff violated Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. section 78j, and Rule 10b-5 are affirmed. Breach of warranties under Maine's version of UCC was waived by plaintiffs through a document they executed.

[06/20] STANDARD BENT GLASS CORP. v. GLASSROBOTS OY
In a commercial dispute, where the parties' conduct constituted a definite and seasonable expression of acceptance that evinced the formation of a contract, an arbitration clause was incorporated by reference to the satisfaction of the U.N. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (CREFAA).

[06/05] BRANDT v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP.
Plaintiff cannot bring a viable cause of action for breach of the UCC implied warranty of merchantability against a hospital after a defective medical device was surgically implanted during her medical treatment in that hospital, as it was predominantly a transaction for services.

Back to Main Menu