Sec. 403. (1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title
which the purchaser's transferor had or had power to transfer, except
that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent
of the interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to
transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. When goods
have been delivered under a transaction of purchase, the purchaser has
such power even though:
(a) the transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser;
or
(b) the delivery was in exchange for a check which is later
dishonored; or
(c) it was agreed that the transaction was to be a "cash sale"; or
(d) the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as theft
under the criminal law.
(2) Any entrusting of possession of goods to a merchant who deals
in goods of that kind gives the merchant power to transfer all rights of
the entruster to a buyer in ordinary course of business.
(3) "Entrusting" includes any delivery and any acquiescence in
retention of possession regardless of any condition expressed between
the parties to the delivery or acquiescence and regardless of whether
the procurement of the entrusting or the possessor's disposition of the
goods have been such as to be theft under the criminal law.
(4) The rights of other purchasers of goods and of lien creditors are
governed by IC 26-1-9.1 on secured transactions and IC 26-1-7 on
documents of title.
Formerly: Acts 1963, c.317, s.2-403. As amended by
P.L.152-1986, SEC.143; P.L.144-1997, SEC.3; P.L.57-2000, SEC.20;
P.L.77-2007, SEC.3.
Notes of Decisions
Madrid v. Bloomington Auto Co., Inc., 782 N.E.2d 386 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403 (2) applies only if the goods are entrusted "to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind.”
Marlow v. Conley, 787 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “Conley's title is voidable if "the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as theft under the criminal law" under Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403 (1)(d). Ind.Code § 85-48-4-2(a) (1998) provides that: "A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over…”
Sam & Mac, Inc. v. Treat, 783 N.E.2d 760 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “I.C. § 26-1-2-403(8) applies to purchases of goods where delivery is to be made without moving the goods.”
Sacks v. State, 360 N.E.2d 21 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 4× “[20] Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403 (1) (emphasis added).”
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, Gross Income Tax Div., 433 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982).
“An entrusting of the possession of goods to a merchant who deals with goods of that kind gives the merchant the power to transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyer in the ordinary course of business, Ind. Code 26-1-2-403(2), even though an agreement purports to reserve…”
Indianapolis Car Exch., Inc. v. Alderson, 910 N.E.2d 802 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, as we have explained, Indiana Code Section 26-1-2-403: was intended to determine the priorities between the two innocent parties (1) the original owner who parts with his goods through fraudulent conduct of another and (2) an innocent third party who gives value for…”
Fox v. Seiler (In Re Seiler), 29 B.R. 33 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1983).
· cites it 2× “I.C. § 26-1-2-403(2). It is not questioned here that the seller, Town and Country Cars, was a merchant dealing in cars, and that the purchase was made “in the ordinary course of business.”
— Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403(1) — 3 cases
Sacks v. State, 360 N.E.2d 21 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977).
“[20] Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403 (1) (emphasis added).”
Marlow v. Conley, 787 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“Conley's title is voidable if "the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as theft under the criminal law" under Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403 (1)(d). Ind.Code § 85-48-4-2(a) (1998) provides that: "A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over…”
— Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403(2) — 5 cases
Madrid v. Bloomington Auto Co., Inc., 782 N.E.2d 386 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403 (2) applies only if the goods are entrusted "to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind.”
Marlow v. Conley, 787 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“Conley's title is voidable if "the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as theft under the criminal law" under Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403 (1)(d). Ind.Code § 85-48-4-2(a) (1998) provides that: "A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over…”
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, Gross Income Tax Div., 433 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982).
“An entrusting of the possession of goods to a merchant who deals with goods of that kind gives the merchant the power to transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyer in the ordinary course of business, Ind. Code 26-1-2-403(2), even though an agreement purports to reserve…”
Fox v. Seiler (In Re Seiler), 29 B.R. 33 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1983).
“I.C. § 26-1-2-403(2). It is not questioned here that the seller, Town and Country Cars, was a merchant dealing in cars, and that the purchase was made “in the ordinary course of business.”
— Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403(3) — 3 cases
Madrid v. Bloomington Auto Co., Inc., 782 N.E.2d 386 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403 (2) applies only if the goods are entrusted "to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind.”
Marlow v. Conley, 787 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“Conley's title is voidable if "the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as theft under the criminal law" under Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403 (1)(d). Ind.Code § 85-48-4-2(a) (1998) provides that: "A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over…”
— Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403(8) — 1 case
Sam & Mac, Inc. v. Treat, 783 N.E.2d 760 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“I.C. § 26-1-2-403(8) applies to purchases of goods where delivery is to be made without moving the goods.”
— Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403(8)(b) — 1 case
Sam & Mac, Inc. v. Treat, 783 N.E.2d 760 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“I.C. § 26-1-2-403(8) applies to purchases of goods where delivery is to be made without moving the goods.”
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.