Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-702 (2026)

Seller's remedies on discovery of buyer's insolvency

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. Where the seller discovers the buyer to be insolvent he may refuse delivery except for cash including payment for all goods theretofore delivered under the contract, and stop delivery under this chapter (§ 4-2-705).
  2. Where the seller discovers that the buyer has received goods on credit while insolvent he may reclaim the goods upon demand made within ten (10) days after the receipt, but if misrepresentation of solvency has been made to the particular seller in writing within three (3) months before delivery the ten day limitation does not apply. Except as provided in this subsection the seller may not base a right to reclaim goods on the buyer's fraudulent or innocent misrepresentation of solvency or of intent to pay.
  3. The seller's right to reclaim under subsection (2) is subject to the rights of a buyer in ordinary course or other good faith purchaser under this chapter (§ 4-2-403). Successful reclamation of goods excludes all other remedies with respect to them.

History. Acts 1961, No. 185, § 2-702; 1967, No. 303, § 4; A.S.A. 1947, § 85-2-702.

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy and the Secured Creditor, 17 Ark. L. Rev. 46.

Case Notes

Bankruptcy.

Where claimant's oral demand complied with state law and bankruptcy was filed after the 10 day time limit for demanding reclamation had expired, the additional requirement of the Bankruptcy Code became effective too late for the claimant to comply with it. To retroactively apply the written requirement of the Bankruptcy Code would result in subjecting the reclaiming seller to a procedure different from the procedure applicable at the time the act to be done was required to be done, and this would be inconsistent with fundamental principles of due process of law. Thus failure to make written demand as required by the Bankruptcy Code results only in claimant's right to reclaim being subject to the avoiding powers of the trustee. In re Bearhouse, Inc., 84 B.R. 552 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1988).

Security Interests.

If the secured party has all the prerequisites of a good faith purchaser for value with a valid security interest in the debtor's after-acquired inventory, the secured party's security interest defeats the equitable rights of the reclaiming sellers. Beebe v. MacMillan Petro. (Ark.), Inc., 115 B.R. 175 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1990).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1988–1998 · leading case: Farmers Rice Milling Co. v. Hawkins (In Re Bearhouse, Inc.), 84 B.R. 552 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1988).
Farmers Rice Milling Co. v. Hawkins (In Re Bearhouse, Inc.), 84 B.R. 552 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1988). · cites it 10× “Shrum argues alternatively that because he made oral demand within ten days of delivery of his rice to Bearhouse, he possessed the rights of an unpaid reclaiming seller on the day the petition was filed pursuant to A.C.A. § 4-2-702 (1987). The trustee and some of the claimants…”
Beebe v. MacMillan Petroleum (Arkansas), Inc. (In Re MacMillan Petroleum (Arkansas), Inc.), 115 B.R. 175 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1990). · cites it 4× “Ark.Code Ann. § 4-2-702(3) now provides: (3)The seller’s right to reclaim under subsection (2) is subject to the rights of a buyer in ordinary course or other good faith purchaser under this chapter (§ 4-2-403).”
Barry v. Shrader Holding Co. (In Re M.P.G., Inc.), 222 B.R. 862 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1998). · cites it 4× “§ 546 (1994) with Ark.Code Ann. § 4-2-702 (Michie 1991). See also Michael L.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-702(2) — 2 cases
Farmers Rice Milling Co. v. Hawkins (In Re Bearhouse, Inc.), 84 B.R. 552 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1988). “Shrum argues alternatively that because he made oral demand within ten days of delivery of his rice to Bearhouse, he possessed the rights of an unpaid reclaiming seller on the day the petition was filed pursuant to A.C.A. § 4-2-702 (1987). The trustee and some of the claimants…”
Barry v. Shrader Holding Co. (In Re M.P.G., Inc.), 222 B.R. 862 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1998). “§ 546 (1994) with Ark.Code Ann. § 4-2-702 (Michie 1991). See also Michael L.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-702(3) — 2 cases
Farmers Rice Milling Co. v. Hawkins (In Re Bearhouse, Inc.), 84 B.R. 552 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1988). “Shrum argues alternatively that because he made oral demand within ten days of delivery of his rice to Bearhouse, he possessed the rights of an unpaid reclaiming seller on the day the petition was filed pursuant to A.C.A. § 4-2-702 (1987). The trustee and some of the claimants…”
Beebe v. MacMillan Petroleum (Arkansas), Inc. (In Re MacMillan Petroleum (Arkansas), Inc.), 115 B.R. 175 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1990). “Ark.Code Ann. § 4-2-702(3) now provides: (3)The seller’s right to reclaim under subsection (2) is subject to the rights of a buyer in ordinary course or other good faith purchaser under this chapter (§ 4-2-403).”
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.