Ark. Code Ann. » Title 4 Chapter 09
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-320 (2026)

Buyer of goods

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (e), a buyer in ordinary course of business, other than a person buying farm products from a person engaged in farming operations, takes free of a security interest created by the buyer's seller, even if the security interest is perfected and the buyer knows of its existence.
  2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (e), a buyer of goods from a person who used or bought the goods for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes takes free of a security interest, even if perfected, if the buyer buys:
    1. without knowledge of the security interest;
    2. for value;
    3. primarily for the buyer's personal, family, or household purposes; and
    4. before the filing of a financing statement covering the goods.
  3. To the extent that it affects the priority of a security interest over a buyer of goods under subsection (b), the period of effectiveness of a filing made in the jurisdiction in which the seller is located is governed by § 4-9-316(a) and (b).
  4. A buyer in ordinary course of business buying oil, gas, or other minerals at the wellhead or minehead or after extraction takes free of an interest arising out of an encumbrance.
  5. Subsections (a) and (b) do not affect a security interest in goods in the possession of the secured party under § 4-9-313.

History. Acts 2001, No. 1439, § 1.

Case Notes

Buyer in Ordinary Course of Business.

The plaintiff had security interest as a first preferred lien in mobile homes and could sell the mobile homes to satisfy the lien because the defendant buyer of these homes was not a buyer in “the ordinary course of business” and was not acting “in good faith and without knowledge” at the time of purchase of the mobile homes, where he was fully aware that the plaintiff had floorplanned and financed the homes and held a security in each of these mobile homes. Rex Fin. Corp. v. Marshall, 406 F. Supp. 567 (W.D. Ark. 1976) (decision under prior law).

Buyer was not buyer in ordinary course of business under the pre-2001 version of this chapter. Merchants & Planters Bank & Trust Co. v. Phoenix Hous. Sys., 21 Ark. App. 153, 729 S.W.2d 433 (1987) (decision under prior law).

Directed verdict, or motion to dismiss under Ark. R. Civ. P. 50(a), was properly granted because mills that purchased gatewood timber from an owner were buyers in the ordinary course of business under §§ 4-1-201(b)(9), 4-9-320, and timber, once cut, became inventory goods under § 4-9-102(a)(48); thus, the mills had no duty to conduct a lien search to find a creditor's perfected security interest in the timber. Fordyce Bank & Trust Co. v. Bean Timberland, Inc., 369 Ark. 90, 251 S.W.3d 267 (2007).

Purchase of Security Instrument.

Where one lender purchased the security instrument the buyer of an automobile gave to the automobile dealer and another lender held the title to the automobile as the result of a floor financing agreement with the dealer but neither lender had perfected its security interest, the lender who had purchased the buyer's contract was entitled to have the title registered to perfect its lien. Commercial Credit Corp. v. National Credit Corp., 251 Ark. 541, 473 S.W.2d 876 (1971) (decision under prior law).

Cited: Commercial Credit Corp. v. Associates Discount Corp., 246 Ark. 118, 436 S.W.2d 809 (1969); United States v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 504 F. Supp. 1258 (E.D. Ark. 1981); Wawak v. Affiliated Food Stores, Inc., 306 Ark. 186, 812 S.W.2d 679 (1991); Lawhon Farm Supply, Inc. v. Hayes, 316 Ark. 69, 870 S.W.2d 729 (1994) (decisions under prior law).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2007–2018 · leading case: Fordyce Bank & Trust Co. v. Bean Timberland, Inc., 251 S.W.3d 267 (Ark. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fordyce Bank & Trust Co. v. Bean Timberland, Inc., 251 S.W.3d 267 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 12× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-320 (Repl. 2001). The appellant in this case, Fordyce Bank & Trust Co.”
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Crossett, 2016 Ark. App. 408 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “We first address FMCC’s argument that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to FNBC because material issues of fact remain regarding whether Murphy was a buyer in the ordinary course of business.”
Rice v. Hill & Hill Farms P'ship (In re Turner Grain Merch., Inc.), 596 B.R. 49 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 4-9-320 (2001). The analysis, however, does not end here.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-9-320(a) — 2 cases
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Crossett, 2016 Ark. App. 408 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). “We first address FMCC’s argument that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to FNBC because material issues of fact remain regarding whether Murphy was a buyer in the ordinary course of business.”
Rice v. Hill & Hill Farms P'ship (In re Turner Grain Merch., Inc.), 596 B.R. 49 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2018). “§ 4-9-320 (2001). The analysis, however, does not end here.”
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.