Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 7-9-109 (2026)
Classification of Goods; “Consumer Goods”; “Equipment”; “Farm Products”; “Inventory”.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Repealed by Act 2001-481, p. 647, § 4, effective January 1, 2002.
(Acts 1965, No. 549, p. 811.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1978–2000 · leading case: Wright v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc., 358 So. 2d 444 (Ala. 1978).
Wright v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc., 358 So. 2d 444 (Ala. 1978). “These classifications are mutually exclusive.”
Greene v. Assocs. (In Re Green), 248 B.R. 583 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2000). “” Ala.Code § 7-9-109(1) (1997). Given the facts of this case, it is apparent that Article 9 of the Alabama Uniform Commercial Code is the relevant and applicable law to use to ascertain the interests, rights, and remedies of both Mr.”
Clark v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 719 F. Supp. 1037 (M.D. Ala. 1989). “§ 9-109 (1975 Code of Ala. § 7-9-109). 3 It is the latter definition to which courts turn for analogies to the consumer-oriented Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.”
Bullen v. Roto Finishing Sys., 435 So. 2d 1256 (Ala. 1983). “There is no doubt that the printer/embosser is industrial equipment as defined by Ala. Code 1975, § 7-9-109, Comment 2. The limitations period ran in early 1975, four years after the machine was delivered to Walled Lake in 1971.”
Richards v. Gen. Motors Corp., 461 So. 2d 825 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984). “§ 7-9-109 (1), Code 1975. If they "are used or bought for use primarily in business," they are equipment.”
Com. Union Assurance Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins., 471 F. Supp. 1011 (S.D. Ala. 1979). “Code § 7-9-109(1) (1975) Applying the above definitions to the facts in the instant case, this Court holds that sandblasting hoods and respirators are not consumer goods and that an action for breach of warranty must be commenced within four years of the tender of delivery of…”
Weaver v. Dan Jones Ford, Inc., 679 So. 2d 1106 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). “§ 7-9-109(1), Code 1975. If they 'are used or bought for use primarily in business,' they are equipment.”
Robertson v. Blalock, 514 So. 2d 1037 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987). “” Ala.Code (1975), § 7-9-109 (comment 3). The explanation of inventory contained in the written instructions is, therefore, in this instance not legally incorrect.”
Harwell v. First Nat'l Bank of Wetumpka (In Re Sewell), 32 B.R. 116 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1983). “Ala.Code § 7-9-109(1) (1975). 13 . White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code 923-24 (2d ed.”
Ex Parte Harsco Corp., 689 So. 2d 845 (Ala. 1997). “"(2) A transfer of a substantial part of the equipment (Section 7-9-109) of such an enterprise is a bulk transfer if it is made in connection with a bulk transfer of inventory, but not otherwise.”
Mayo v. Rouselle Corp., 375 So. 2d 449 (Ala. 1979). “See § 7-9-109 (defines consumer goods and equipment).”
First Dallas Cnty. Bank v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 425 So. 2d 460 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982). “Section 7-9-109 (4), Code of Alabama 1975.”
— Ala. Code § 7-9-109(1) — 5 cases
Greene v. Assocs. (In Re Green), 248 B.R. 583 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2000). “” Ala.Code § 7-9-109(1) (1997). Given the facts of this case, it is apparent that Article 9 of the Alabama Uniform Commercial Code is the relevant and applicable law to use to ascertain the interests, rights, and remedies of both Mr.”
Com. Union Assurance Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins., 471 F. Supp. 1011 (S.D. Ala. 1979). “Code § 7-9-109(1) (1975) Applying the above definitions to the facts in the instant case, this Court holds that sandblasting hoods and respirators are not consumer goods and that an action for breach of warranty must be commenced within four years of the tender of delivery of…”
Harwell v. First Nat'l Bank of Wetumpka (In Re Sewell), 32 B.R. 116 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1983). “Ala.Code § 7-9-109(1) (1975). 13 . White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code 923-24 (2d ed.”
Weaver v. Dan Jones Ford, Inc., 679 So. 2d 1106 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). “§ 7-9-109(1), Code 1975. If they 'are used or bought for use primarily in business,' they are equipment.”
In Re Hamby, 19 B.R. 776 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1982).
— Ala. Code § 7-9-109(2) — 1 case
Weaver v. Dan Jones Ford, Inc., 679 So. 2d 1106 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). “§ 7-9-109(1), Code 1975. If they 'are used or bought for use primarily in business,' they are equipment.”
— Ala. Code § 7-9-109(3) — 1 case
In re Deeb, 59 B.R. 661 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1986).
— Ala. Code § 7-9-109(4) — 1 case
Robertson v. Blalock, 514 So. 2d 1037 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987). “” Ala.Code (1975), § 7-9-109 (comment 3). The explanation of inventory contained in the written instructions is, therefore, in this instance not legally incorrect.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.