2-202.
State fairgrounds and buildings; use for other purposes.
The tract of land conveyed by the county of Reno to the state of Kansas for fair purposes, and all other real estate acquired by the state of Kansas, for fair purposes, shall be held by the state of Kansas as a state fairgrounds, and for other authorized uses. The state fair board may direct, regulate, lease and control the use of the fairgrounds, and the buildings located thereon, in the conducting and operating of a state fair. When use of the fairgrounds, and the buildings located thereon, is not deemed necessary for use for fair purposes, the state fair board may enter into a contract, lease or agreement permitting the use of all or a portion of such fairgrounds, or buildings located thereon, for such uses and on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. Such contract, lease or agreement shall be in writing. In the event such contract, lease or agreement involves a use in which two or more persons or firms are known to be interested, then the contract, lease or agreement shall be awarded by the director of purchases pursuant to the provisions of article 37 of chapter 75 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated. If at any time the state of Kansas fails to hold a state fair in any one year, then the county of Reno or any association in that county organized for the purpose of holding a fair shall be permitted to use the tract conveyed by the county of Reno to the state of Kansas and buildings thereon free of charge for the purpose of holding a state fair that year.
History:
R.S. 1923, § 2-202; L. 1955, ch. 2, § 1; L. 1987, ch. 5, § 7; April 30.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case:
Wayman v. Amoco Oil Co., 923 F. Supp. 1322 (D. Kan. 1996).
Wayman v. Amoco Oil Co., 923 F. Supp. 1322 (D. Kan. 1996).
· cites it 17× “It is undisputed that the UCC’s version of the parol evidence rule, UCC § 2-202, applies to this case. UCC § 2-202 addresses the admissibility of evidence that purportedly establishes a term that does not appear in the written contract.”
Rajala v. Allied Corp., 66 B.R. 582 (D. Kan. 1986).
· cites it 10× “The parol evidence rule is codified in § 2-202, and the statute of frauds in § 2-201.”
Ritchie Enter. v. Honeywell Bull, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 1041 (D. Kan. 1990).
“106, § 2-202. As a result, if the final integrated written expression contains a clause disclaiming all express and implied warranties, any prior or contemporaneous oral express warranties are effectively excluded.”
Haarslev, Inc. v. Tom's Metal Enter., LLC (D. Kan. 2025).
· cites it 2× “-14- supplement the terms of a written contract, and that Section 2-202 does not endorse course of performance as a means of amending or waiving express terms of written contracts.”
— K.S.A. § 2-202(a) — 1 case
Wayman v. Amoco Oil Co., 923 F. Supp. 1322 (D. Kan. 1996).
“It is undisputed that the UCC’s version of the parol evidence rule, UCC § 2-202, applies to this case. UCC § 2-202 addresses the admissibility of evidence that purportedly establishes a term that does not appear in the written contract.”
— K.S.A. § 2-202(b) — 1 case
Wayman v. Amoco Oil Co., 923 F. Supp. 1322 (D. Kan. 1996).
“It is undisputed that the UCC’s version of the parol evidence rule, UCC § 2-202, applies to this case. UCC § 2-202 addresses the admissibility of evidence that purportedly establishes a term that does not appear in the written contract.”
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.