Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 4
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-101 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Commercial Code - Sales".

Source: L. 65: p. 1298, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-101.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1977–2020 · leading case: West v. Roberts, 143 P.3d 1037 (Colo. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
West v. Roberts, 143 P.3d 1037 (Colo. 2006). · cites it 4× “Indeed, I agree that Colorado's version of the UCC covers the entire landscape of commercial transactions, from Sales, § 4-2-101, C.R.S. (2006), and Negotiable Instruments, § 4-3-101, C.”
Scoular Co. v. Denney, 151 P.3d 615 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “1996), Denney asserts that (1) under § 4-2-101, et seq., C.R.S.2006, Colorado's version of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), he could not be bound to a contract based only on his oral offer to sell; (2) contrary to the trial court's conclusion, Scoular's contracting to sell the…”
KN Energy, Inc. v. Great W. Sugar Co., 698 P.2d 769 (Colo. 1985). “, § 4-2-101 et seq., 2 C.R.S. (1973). See Oskey Gasoline and Oil Co.”
Orlowski v. Bates, 146 F. Supp. 3d 908 (W.D. Tenn. 2015). “See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-101 et seq. (codifying the Uniform Commercial Code).”
Moffat Cnty. State Bank v. Producers Livestock Mktg. Ass'n, 598 F. Supp. 1562 (D. Colo. 1984). · cites it 2× “as codified in Colorado, Colo.Rev.Stat. §§ 4-2-101 et seq., and, to the extent they are inconsistent with Article 2, supercede it.”
Hersh Companies v. Highline Vill. Assocs., 30 P.3d 221 (Colo. 2001). “The contract and accompanying warranties at issue in this case did not predominantly involve a sale of goods, making the Uniform Commercial Code, §§ 4-2-101 to -725, 2 C.R.S. (2000), inapplicable.”
Moore v. Burt Chervolet, Inc., 563 P.2d 369 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “Indeed, the Official Comment to § 4-2-101, C.R.S.1973, states: "The coverage of the present Article is much more extensive than that of the old Sales Act .”
Thomas v. Bove, 687 P.2d 534 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Seller’s only answer, and one which is unsupported in seller’s brief by any case or statutory authority, is that the Uniform Commercial Code article governing sales, § 4-2-101, et seq., C.R.S., which provides for such warranties is inapplicable to “improvements on real property…”
Smith v. Union Supply Co., 675 P.2d 333 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “We accept the defendants’ posturing of the issue as an action on a contract for the sale of goods pursuant to § 4-2-102, C.”
Colorado-Kansas Grain Co. v. Reifschneider, 817 P.2d 637 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991). “After a trial to the court, judgment was entered for plaintiff, based, in part, on the trial court’s conclusion that defendant was a “merchant” within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), § 4-2-101, et seq.”
United States Welding, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp., 587 F. Supp. 49 (D. Colo. 1984). · cites it 2× “t intends to supply it Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the tort of negligent misrepresentation provides no legal basis for relief in a situation such as this where the defendant alleges solely economic…”
Lockhart v. Elm, 736 P.2d 429 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). “), and thus, it concluded, the provisions of § 4-2-101, et seq., C.R.S., governed. It also found that the alleged agreement between the parties did not comply with § 4-2-201, C.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.