(1) Unless the context otherwise requires, and except as provided in subsection (3) of this
section, this article 2 applies to transactions in goods and, in the case of a hybrid transaction, it
applies to the extent provided in subsection (2) of this section.
(2) In a hybrid transaction:
(a) If the sale-of-goods aspects do not predominate, only the provisions of this article 2
which relate primarily to the sale-of-goods aspects of the transaction apply, and the provisions
that relate primarily to the transaction as a whole do not apply.
(b) If the sale-of-goods aspects predominate, this article 2 applies to the transaction but
does not preclude application in appropriate circumstances of other law to aspects of the
transaction which do not relate to the sale of goods.
(3) This article 2 does not:
(a) Apply to a transaction that, even though in the form of an unconditional contract to
sell or present sale, operates only to create a security interest; or
(b) Impair or repeal a statute regulating sales to consumers, farmers, or other specified
classes of buyers.
Source: L. 65: p. 1298, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-102. L. 77: Entire section R&RE, p.
313, § 5, effective January 1, 1978. L. 2023: Entire section amended, (SB 23-090), ch. 136, p.
526, § 5, effective August 7.
Editor's note - Colorado legislative change: Colorado added new paragraph (b). There
is no counterpart to paragraph (b) in the uniform act.
Cross references: For secured transactions, sales of accounts, contract rights, and chattel
paper, see article 9 of this title; for the "Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act", see part 2 of
article 19 of title 15; for nontransplant tissue banks, see article 140 of title 12; for limitation on
liability regarding transplants and transfusion of blood, see § 13-22-104.
Notes of Decisions
Amoco Oil Co. v. Ervin (1996)
colo · cites it 2×
“The reasonable expectations of the parties are thus guided by that standard as provided by § 4-2-102. [5] The Dealers do not allege that Amoco failed to give them proper notice.”
Loughridge v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (2002)
cod · cites it 2×
“See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-2-102(1). ‘Goods' means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale .”
Forest City Stapleton Inc. v. Rogers (2017)
colo · cites it 2×
“Notably, in Colorado, the legislature has eliminated the privity of contract requirement in implied warranty cases involving the sale of personal property by extending implied warranties to any person who may reasonably be expected to use, consume, or be affected by the goods…”
McClanahan v. American Gilsonite Co. (1980)
cod · cites it 2×
“” Section 4-2-102. “Goods” are defined as “all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the sale,” including “things attached to realty (section 4-2-107).”
Moore v. BURT CHERVOLET, INC. (1977)
coloctapp · cites it 4×
“This appeal presents the question of whether the term "goods" as employed in § 4-2-102, C.R.S.1973, of the Uniform Commercial Code applies to a sale by a merchant of used, as well as new, goods.”
American Economy Insurance v. Schoolcraft (2007)
cod · cites it 2×
“(emphasis added); see also Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-2-102(l)(b)(the Colorado Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to the “acquisition, preparation, transplantation, injection, or transfusion of any human tissue, organ, or blood or component thereof for or to a human being”).”
Smith v. Union Supply Co. (1983)
coloctapp · cites it 2×
“R.S. 1973, or the six-year statute of limitations set out in § 13-80-110(l)(d), C.”
Thomas v. Bove (1984)
coloctapp · cites it 3×
“” Section 4-2-102, C.R.S. (1983 Cum.Supp.).”
Leica Geosystems, Inc. v. L.W.S. Leasing, Inc. (2012)
cod · cites it 2×
“Neither party disputes that the two possible sources of state law for contract interpretation purposes, Colorado and Georgia, have adopted the UCC and that there are no measurable differences in the states’ interpretation of the UCC provisions relevant to this case.”
Lockhart v. Elm (1987)
coloctapp · cites it 2×
“The trial court, sitting without a jury, found that the alleged agreement between the parties constituted a transaction in goods pursuant to § 4-2-102, C.R.S. (1986 Cum.Supp.), and thus, it concluded, the provisions of § 4-2-101, et seq.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-102(1) — 2 cases
Loughridge v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (2002)
cod
“See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-2-102(1). ‘Goods' means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-102(2) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-102(l)(b) — 1 case
American Economy Insurance v. Schoolcraft (2007)
cod
“(emphasis added); see also Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-2-102(l)(b)(the Colorado Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to the “acquisition, preparation, transplantation, injection, or transfusion of any human tissue, organ, or blood or component thereof for or to a human being”).”
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.