Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 26-1-2-309 (2026)
Absence of specific time provisions; notice of termination
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 309. (1) The time for shipment or delivery or any other action under a contract, if not provided in IC 26-1-2 or agreed upon, shall be a reasonable time.
(2) Where the contract provides for successive performances but is indefinite in duration, it is valid for a reasonable time but unless otherwise agreed may be terminated at any time by either party.
(3) Termination of a contract by one (1) party, except on the happening of an agreed event, requires that reasonable notification be received by the other party, and an agreement dispensing with notification is invalid if its operation would be unconscionable.
Formerly: Acts 1963, c.317, s.2-309. As amended by P.L.152-1986, SEC.132.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1977–2017 · leading case: Best Disturbuting Co. v. Seyfert Foods, Inc., 714 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
Best Disturbuting Co. v. Seyfert Foods, Inc., 714 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “§ 26-1-2-309, provides: "[a]bsence of specific time provisions; notice of termination * * * * (3) Termination of a contract by one (1) party, except on the happening of an agreed event, requires that reasonable notification be received by the other party, and an agreement…”
Monarch Beverage Co., Inc. v. Tyfield Importers, Inc., 823 F.2d 1187 (7th Cir. 1987). “” Ind.Code § 26-1-2-309, comment 8 (emphasis supplied); see also Zidell Explorations, Inc.”
Jones Distrib. Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 943 F. Supp. 1445 (N.D. Iowa 1996). “supported by its prior holding that a twenty-eight day notice of termination provision in a distributorship agreement of indefinite duration was reasonable under Indiana’s version of the UCC, Ind.Code 26-1-2-309, citing Rockwell Eng’g Co.”
Luedtke Eng'g Co., Inc. v. Indiana Limestone Co., Inc., 740 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1984). “Ind.Code § 26-1-2-309 (1979). The district court found that Indiana Limestone’s delivery rate was reasonable, both because Indiana Limestone delivered the stone in time for Luedtke to finish the project before the Corps’ deadline, and because Indiana Limestone’s delivery delays…”
Watson Water Co., Inc. v. Indiana-Am. Water Co., Inc., 85 N.E.3d 840 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “The dispositive provision of Indiana’s codification of the UCC, Indiana Code section 26-1-2-309 (1986), pertaining to the absence of specific time provisions and notices of termination, provides as follows: (1) The time for shipment or delivery or any other action under a…”
Commc'ns Maint., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 761 F.2d 1202 (7th Cir. 1985). “1977) this court held that a twenty-eight-day notice of termination of a distributorship agreement of indefinite duration was reasonable under Indiana's version of the Uniform Commercial Code, Ind.Code 26-1-2-309. 33 Since we uphold the district court's finding of no substantive…”
Rockwell Eng'g Co., Inc. v. Automatic Timing & Controls Co., 559 F.2d 460 (7th Cir. 1977). “It provides (Ind.Code 26-1-2-309): 19 "Absence of specific time provisions Notice of termination.”
Commc'ns Maint., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 761 F.2d 1202 (7th Cir. 1985). “1977) this court held that a twenty-eight-day notice of termination of a distributorship agreement of indefinite duration was reasonable under Indiana’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code, Ind.Code 26-1-2-309. *1210 Since we uphold the district court’s finding of no…”
Rockwell Eng'g Co. v. Automatic Timing & Controls Co., 559 F.2d 460 (7th Cir. 1977). “It provides (Ind. Code 26-1-2-309): “Absence of specific time provisions — No tice of termination.”
— Ind. Code § 26-1-2-309(3) — 1 case
Monarch Beverage Co., Inc. v. Tyfield Importers, Inc., 823 F.2d 1187 (7th Cir. 1987). “” Ind.Code § 26-1-2-309, comment 8 (emphasis supplied); see also Zidell Explorations, Inc.”
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.