K.S.A. » Chapter 02
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 2-207 (2026)

Repealed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

2-207.

History: L. 1913, ch. 152, § 1; L. 1917, ch. 190, § 1; L. 1919, ch. 194, § 1; R.S. 1923, § 2-207; L. 1927, ch. 2, § 1; Repealed, L. 1929, ch. 1, § 19; May 28.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Section considered in connection with calling of special election. The State, ex rel., v. Deck, 106 Kan. 518, 523, 188 P. 238.

2. Laws of 1927, attempting to amend section void because of title. Rathjen v. Finley, 126 Kan. 270, 267 P. 967.

3. Mentioned; act authorizing combined waterworks and sewage disposal systems held valid. City of Lawrence v. Robb, 175 Kan. 495, 502, 265 P.2d 317.


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1928–2026 · leading case: Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000). · cites it 18× “2d at 98 (parties’ conduct in shipping, receiving and paying for product demonstrates existence of contract; box top license constitutes proposal for additional terms under § 2-207 which requires express agreement by purchaser); Arizona Retail, 831 F.”
M.K.C. Equip. Co. v. M.A.I.L. Code, Inc., 843 F. Supp. 679 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 6× “Plaintiffs argument that the forum selection clause contained in the dealer agreement should not apply is based on the provisions of UCC § 2-207 1 which governs situations in which the terms of a written confirmation can be incorporated into an existing oral agreement.”
Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., 92 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (D. Kan. 2015). · cites it 4× “The bulk (if not all) of plaintiffs argument concerning the UCC has, up until this point, focused on § 2-207, which restricts modifications to existing contracts governed by the UCC.”
United States Surgical Corp. v. Orris, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (D. Kan. 1998). · cites it 4× “§ 2-207, the “single use only” term is not binding on the customer if the additional term materially alters the agreement .”
Scotwood Indus., Inc. v. Frank Miller & Sons, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D. Kan. 2006). · cites it 2× “The parties agree, in fact, that in deciding whether to apply the time limitation provision in each invoice forwarded to Miller and Sons, the controlling section of the UCC is § 2-207(2)(b). Under that section, additional terms between merchants become part of the contract…”
Rathjen v. Finley, 267 P. 967 (Kan. 1928). · cites it 8× “” That act appears in the Revised Statutes of 1923 as section 2-207. The title to the act of 1919 and of all the previous ones indicated that the act authorized counties to make levies for certain fair purposes.”
Smith & Loveless, Inc. v. Caicos Corp., 471 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (D. Kan. 2007). · cites it 9× “Introduction This is a “battle of the forms” contract case under section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”).”
Uhlig LLC v. Corelogic, Inc. (D. Kan. 2022). · cites it 5× “To support this argument, CoreLogic cites cases involving § 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code—a provision that governs the effect of adding more terms to a contract in an acceptance or confirmation of an offer.”
P&E Solutions, LLC v. Crescent Power Sys., Inc.; Crescent Power Sys., Inc. v. North Am. Speciality Ins. Co. (D. Kan. 2026). “§ 2-207. -8- 2. Texas Substantive Law Governs the Terms and Conditions The second threshold issue is whether the Terms and Conditions’ choice-of-law provision applies.”
K.S.A. § 2-207(1): 3 cases
Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000). “2d at 98 (parties’ conduct in shipping, receiving and paying for product demonstrates existence of contract; box top license constitutes proposal for additional terms under § 2-207 which requires express agreement by purchaser); Arizona Retail, 831 F.”
M.K.C. Equip. Co. v. M.A.I.L. Code, Inc., 843 F. Supp. 679 (D. Kan. 1994). “Plaintiffs argument that the forum selection clause contained in the dealer agreement should not apply is based on the provisions of UCC § 2-207 1 which governs situations in which the terms of a written confirmation can be incorporated into an existing oral agreement.”
Uhlig LLC v. Corelogic, Inc. (D. Kan. 2022). “To support this argument, CoreLogic cites cases involving § 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code—a provision that governs the effect of adding more terms to a contract in an acceptance or confirmation of an offer.”
K.S.A. § 2-207(2): 1 case
Smith & Loveless, Inc. v. Caicos Corp., 471 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (D. Kan. 2007). “Introduction This is a “battle of the forms” contract case under section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”).”
K.S.A. § 2-207(2)(b): 1 case
Scotwood Indus., Inc. v. Frank Miller & Sons, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D. Kan. 2006). “The parties agree, in fact, that in deciding whether to apply the time limitation provision in each invoice forwarded to Miller and Sons, the controlling section of the UCC is § 2-207(2)(b). Under that section, additional terms between merchants become part of the 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.