Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 26-1-2-101 (2026)
Short title
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 101. IC 26-1-2 shall be known and may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code ─ Sales.
Formerly: Acts 1963, c.317, s.2-101. As amended by P.L.152-1986, SEC.119.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2021 · leading case: Reed v. Cent. Soya Co., Inc., 621 N.E.2d 1069 (Ind. 1993).
Reed v. Cent. Soya Co., Inc., 621 N.E.2d 1069 (Ind. 1993). “Code §§ 26-1-2-101 through XX-X-X-XXX, constitutes a comprehensive system for determining rights and duties of buyers and sellers with respect to contracts for the sale of goods.”
Kovach v. Alpharma, Inc., 890 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Its general purpose is to: (1) simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties and (3) make uniform law among the various jurisdictions.”
Sanco, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 579 F. Supp. 893 (S.D. Ind. 1984). “Ind.Code 26-1-2-101 to 26-1-2-725. “Economic loss” designates the diminution in the value of a product and consequent loss of profits because the product is inferior in quality and does not work for the general purposes for which it was manufactured and sold.”
Michiana MacK, Inc. v. Allendale Rural Fire Prot. Dist., 428 N.E.2d 1367 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). “Further, the trial court is ordered to correct its award of damages to Allendale by excluding those amounts allowed for interest and insurance payments; and, therefore enter final judg *1374 ment of damages for Allendale in the amount of $1,799.42. 17 HOFFMAN, P.”
McClure Oil Corp. v. Murray Equip., Inc., 515 N.E.2d 546 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987). “Indiana Code sections 26-1-2-101 through 26-1-2-725 (hereafter designated IC 2-101 through 2-725).”
M.K.C. Equip. Co. v. M.A.I.L. Code, Inc., 843 F. Supp. 679 (D. Kan. 1994). “These sections are codified in the Indiana statutes at Ind.Code § 26-1-2-101, et seq., and in the Kansas statutes at K.”
Belden Inc. v. Am. Elec. Components, Inc., 885 N.E.2d 751 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “denied; see also Ind. Code § 26-1-2-101 (“IC 26-1-2 shall be known and may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code — Sales.”
Peltz Constr. Co. v. Dunham, 436 N.E.2d 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). “— Sales is found in Ind.Code 26-1-2-101 et seq. These statutory sections only apply to “goods” which are defined, in part, as “all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale .”
O'Donnell v. Am. Employers Ins., 622 N.E.2d 570 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993). “CODE § 26-1-2-101 Comment (“The legal consequences are stated as following directly from the contract and action taken under it without resorting to the idea of when property or title passed or was to pass as being the determining factor”).”
Farm Equip. Store, Inc. v. White Farm Equip. Co., 596 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). “CODE § 26-1-2-101, et seq. (1988 Ed.). The parties entered into the dealership contract in 1986.”
Packgen v. Berry Plastics Corp., 973 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D. Me. 2013). “§ 2-207, with Ind.Code § 26-1-2-101; compare 11 M.R.S. § 2-725, with Ind.”
Martin Rispens & Son v. Hall Farms, Inc., 621 N.E.2d 1078 (Ind. 1993). “§ 26-1-2-101 through § 26-1-2-725 (West 1980 & Supp.”
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.