ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

810 ILCS 5/2-102 (2026)

Scope; certain security and other transactions excluded from this Article

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/2-102) (from Ch. 26, par. 2-102)
    Sec. 2-102. Scope; certain security and other transactions excluded from this Article.
    (1) Unless the context otherwise requires, and except as provided in subsection (3), this Article applies to transactions in goods and, in the case of a hybrid transaction, it applies to the extent provided in subsection (2).
    (2) In a hybrid transaction:
        (a) If the sale-of-goods aspects do not predominate,
    
only the provisions of this Article 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 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 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: P.A. 103-1036, eff. 1-1-25.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. 2002). “" 810 ILCS 5/2-102 (West 2000). Defendants argue that the 1980 dealer agreement was principally for the sale of goods and that the agreement therefore comes within the ambit of article 2.”
In re Gen. Motors Corp. Dex-Cool Prods. Liab. Litig., 241 F.R.D. 305 (S.D. Ill. 2007). “That provision states, in relevant part, “[e]xeept as provided in this Section, when a transaction bears a reasonable relation to this State and also to another state or nation the parties may agree that the law either of this State or of the other state or nation shall govern…”
John Karazanos & Yiannis, Inc. v. Madison Two Assocs., 147 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 1998). “3 ,(1992) and 810 ILCS 5/2-102 (West 1998) (applicability of Article 2 to sale of goods) and 810 ILCS 5/9 — 104(j) (West 1998) (inapplicability of Article 9 to interests in real property including leases).”
Andrews v. Carbon On 26th, LLC, 2024 IL App (1st) 231369 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “And as counsel for the wholesalers pointed out at oral argument in this appeal, the UCC, which expressly applies to “transactions in goods” (810 ILCS 5/2-102 (West 2022)), defines “Goods” broadly to encompass “all things *** which are movable at the time of identification to the…”
Armagan v. Pesha, 2014 IL App (1st) 121840 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “See 810 ILCS 5/2-102 (West 2010). Therefore, we reject defendants’ contention that plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of frauds.”
Brandt v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Ctr., 771 N.E.2d 470 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “Section 2-104 defines "merchant" to mean: "[A] person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to whom such knowledge or skill may be attributed…”
Carl A. Haas Auto. Imports, Inc. v. Lola Cars Ltd., 933 F. Supp. 1381 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “1995) confirms the applicability of that provision on a claim akin to Haas’.”
Smith v. Merck & Co., Inc., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (S.D. Ill. 2007). “Finally, although the Court is not required to reach the issue because it has concluded that Smith has viable claims for strict products liability and negligence against Walgreens, the Court rejects Merck’s contention that Smith has no viable claim against Walgreens for breach…”
Zielinski v. Miller, 660 N.E.2d 1289 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “Knapp contends that count III alleges a contract for the sale of goods and is therefore time barred under section 2-725 of the Uniform Commercial Code. (See 810 ILCS 5/2-725 (West 1993).”
Heller Fin., Inc. v. Samuel Schick, Inc. (In Re Wedlo Holdings, Inc.), 248 B.R. 336 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2000). “810 ILCS 5/2-102; Barber v. McCord Auto Supply, Inc.”
EJ Constr. 1 Corp. v. Pellegrino, 2024 IL App (3d) 240069 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “2 This question is simply answered by reference to article 2’s “scope provision” (810 ILCS 5/2-102 (West 2 A “merchant” is defined as “a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices…”
Thompson Fine Art, Ltd v. Union League Club of Chicago, 2022 IL App (1st) 210391-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “810 ILCS 5/2-102 (West 2020). Section 2-207 of the UCC superseded the mirror image rule in some respects.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— 810 ILCS 5/2-102(2)(b) — 1 case
Cesare v. Perma-Seal Basement Sys., Inc., 2026 IL App (3d) 250084-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2026).
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.