Sec. 102. (1) Unless the context otherwise requires,
and except as provided in subsection (3), this chapter applies to
transactions in goods and, in the case of a hybrid transaction, this
chapter applies to the extent provided in subsection (2).
(2) In a hybrid transaction, the following apply:
(a) If the sale of goods aspects do not predominate, only the
provisions of this chapter which relate primarily to the sales of
goods aspects of the transaction apply, and the provisions that
relate to the transaction as a whole do not apply.
(b) If the sale of goods aspects predominate, this chapter applies
to the transaction but does not preclude the application in
appropriate circumstances of other law to aspects of the
transaction that do not relate to the sale of goods.
(3) This chapter does not:
(a) apply to a transaction that, even though in the form of an
unconditional contract to sell or present sale, operates to create a
security interest; or
(b) impair or repeal a statute regulating sales to consumers,
farmers, or other specified classes of buyers.
Formerly: Acts 1963, c.317, s.2-102. As amended by
P.L.152-1986, SEC.120; P.L.2-1991, SEC.86; P.L.199-2023,
SEC.3.
Notes of Decisions
Conwell v. Gray Loon Outdoor Mktg. Grp., Inc., 906 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2009).
· cites it 2× “§ 26-1-2-102 (2008). Goods "means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale, other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (IC 16-1-8.”
Madrid v. Bloomington Auto Co., Inc., 782 N.E.2d 386 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 26-1-2-102 (1998). Furthermore, because the UCC is a "general statute intended as a unified coverage of its subject matter, no part of it shall be deemed to be impliedly repealed by subsequent legislation if such construction can reasonably be avoided.”
Insul-Mark Midwest, Inc. v. Modern Materials, Inc., 612 N.E.2d 550 (Ind. 1993).
· cites it 2× “One of Insul-Mark's customers also made claims in excess of $19,-000 on the faulty serews. Applicability of the U.C.C. The Sales chapter of the Indiana U.”
Wilson v. Royal Motor Sales, Inc., 812 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “" Ind.Code § 26-1-2-102. Under that chapter, the seller has an obligation to deliver the good in accordance with the contract and the buyer has an obligation to accept the good and pay for it in accordance with the contract.”
Ogden Martin Sys. of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Whiting Corp., 179 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 1999).
“Rather, Ogden Martin submits that the installation of the two overhead cranes at its plant constituted an improvement to real property and, therefore, the six year statute of limitations for actions arising from such improvements should have been applied by the district court.”
Heritage Acceptance Corp. v. Chris L. Romine, 6 N.E.3d 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 6× “” Ind.Code § 26-1-2-102 (1991). “It does not apply to any transaction which although in the form of an unconditional contract to sell or present sale is intended to operate only as a security transaction.”
Joe A. Corbin & Marta C. Corbin v. Coleco Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1984).
“We think that the distinction between “breach of implied warranty sounding in contract” and “breach of implied warranty sounding in tort” is archaic in Indiana with respect to warranties arising out of the sale of goods. Above-ground swimming pools are goods within the meaning…”
Troyer v. Cowles Prods. Co., Inc., 732 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “” The apparent conflict between these two statutes of limitations has been resolved by the legislature’s enactment of Indiana Code section 26-1-10-102, which states that “[t]o the extent that .”
Kimco Leasing Co. v. Lake Hortonia Props., 640 A.2d 18 (Vt. 1993).
“Kimco does not dispute that the Fitness Center actually purchased the equipment but argues that (1) the lease agreement was intended as security for a debt and therefore Article 2 does not apply, see Ind. Code Ann. § 26-1-2-102 (Burns 1992); (2) no agency relationship exists…”
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.