K.S.A. » Chapter 84
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 84-1-105 (2026)

Severability

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

84-1-105. Severability. If any provision or clause of the uniform commercial code or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the uniform commercial code which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of the uniform commercial code are severable.

History: L. 2007, ch. 89, § 5; July 1, 2008.

KANSAS COMMENT, 1996

1. This section establishes choice of law rules when a transaction bears "a reasonable relation" to the state of Kansas as well as to another state. Under subsection (1), the parties are permitted to specify the state whose laws will govern a particular contract. If the parties do not so specify, the Kansas Code applies when a transaction bears "an appropriate relation" to the state of Kansas. As to what constitutes "an appropriate relation," the courts will have to say. See Official Comments 2 and 3 to this section for some guidance. However, since the Code is law in all but one state (and even in that state, Louisiana, part of the Code is law), the statutes in the various states will usually be identical or nearly identical, and conflict of laws problems should be less serious than in pre-Code days.

2. Subsection (2) lists seven provisions under which the parties' ability to specify the applicable law is limited. This subsection has been amended several times in recent years to reflect additions and revisions to the Code.

3. Cases applying this section, or applying Kansas law via this section, include Farmers State Bank v. Production Credit Ass'n, 243 K. 87, 755 P.2d 518 (1988); Benedictine College, Inc. v. Century Office Prod., Inc., 853 F. Supp. 1315 (D. Kan. 1994); National Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Taylor, 225 K. 58, 587 P.2d 870 (1978); Ellsworth v. Worthey, 612 S.W.2d 396 (Mo. App. 1981). See also Mark Twain Kansas City Bank v. Cates, 248 K. 700, 810 P.2d 1154 (1991) (applying 84-1-105 by analogy to mortgage).

Revisor's Note:

Former section 84-1-105 was repealed by L. 2007, ch. 89, § 49 and the number reassigned to the current text.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"Secured Transactions in Kansas: The New Look," J. Eugene Balloun, 5 W.L.J. 192, 193 (1966).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Secured Transactions," J. Eugene Balloun, 16 K.L.R. 437, 441 (1968).

"Contracts in Conflict of Laws," J. Taylor Neuschwander, 12 W.L.J. 317, 324 (1973).

"Changes in Article Nine of the Kansas Commercial Code," Alan Tipton, 15 W.L.J. 212, 221, 222 (1976).

"Choice-of-Laws: Should Kansas Abandon Lex Loci Delicti?", Martin R. Ufford, 16 W.L.J. 302, 318, 319, 322 (1977).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Foreign default judgment order dismissed on motion; service not complete; jurisdiction not acquired. National Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Taylor, 225 Kan. 58, 60, 61, 587 P.2d 870.

2. Cited; applicability of Kansas law on unauthorized removal from state and sale of secured collateral examined. Farmers State Bank v. Production Cred. Ass'n of St. Cloud, 243 Kan. 87, 96, 755 P.2d 518 (1988).

3. Contract provided that Massachusetts law governed contract claims of Kansas purchaser from Massachusetts seller; Kansas law governed tort claims as that was where injury was suffered. Ritchie Enterprises v. Honeywell Bull, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 1041, 1046 (1990).

4. Public policy herein applies to loan and mortgage executed in Missouri on land located in Kansas. Mark Twain Kansas City Bank v. Cates, 248 Kan. 700, 707, 810 P.2d 1154 (1991).

5. Guaranty choice of law provision designating Missouri law as controlling upheld although guarantor and debtor were Kansas residents. United Missouri Bank v. Gagel, 815 F. Supp. 387, 388, 391 (1993).

6. Whether Missouri had reasonable relationship to transaction allowing parties agreement to apply Missouri law to stand examined. Benedictine College v. Century Office Products, 853 F. Supp. 1315, 1323 (1994).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1978–2007 · leading case: Brenner v. Oppenheimer & Co., 44 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brenner v. Oppenheimer & Co., 44 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2002). “84-1-105(1) provides that “when a transaction bears a reasonable relation to this state and also to another state or nation the parties may agree that the law either of this state or of such other state or nation shall govern their rights and duties.”
Morris v. U.S. Bancorp Leasing & Fin. (In Re Charles), 278 B.R. 216 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2002). · cites it 3× “Kan. Stat. Ann § 84-1-105 provides, (1)“Except as provided hereafter in this section, when a transaction bears a reasonable relation to this state and also to another state or nation the parties may agree that the law either of this state or of such other state or nation shall…”
Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. § 84-1-105(1); Mo.Rev.Stal. § 400.”
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 89 P.3d 908 (Kan. 2004). “” The defendants’ arguments are premised on their view that the court must apply the laws of the various states in which plaintiffs reside, which defendants contend could involve most states.”
Commander Props. Corp. v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 164 F.R.D. 529 (D. Kan. 1995). · cites it 2× “Thus, we see no certification problem with regard to the warranty claims on choice of law grounds.”
Ritchie Enter. v. Honeywell Bull, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 1041 (D. Kan. 1990). “K.S.A. 84-1-105(1). See National Equip. Rental, Ltd.”
Mark Twain Kansas City Bank v. Cates, 810 P.2d 1154 (Kan. 1991). “*707 K.S.A. 84-1-105. The same public policy applies to a loan and mortgage executed in Missouri on land located in Kansas.”
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Sonic Dev. Corp., 546 F. Supp. 533 (D. Kan. 1982). “K.S.A. 84-1-105(1) provides appropriate choice-of-law considerations for cases arising under the U.”
Hope's Architectural Prods., Inc. v. Lundy's Constr., Inc., 781 F. Supp. 711 (D. Kan. 1991). · cites it 2× “Although the parties did not address this issue, the Court concludes that Kansas law applies to this dispute.”
Benedictine Coll., Inc. v. Century Off. Prods., Inc., 853 F. Supp. 1315 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 4× “But an agreement as to choice of law may sometimes take effect as a shorthand expression of the intent of the parties as to matters governed by their agreement, even though the transaction has no significant contact with the jurisdiction chosen.”
Cent. Kansas Credit Union v. Mut. Guar. Corp., 102 F.3d 1097 (10th Cir. 1996). “The contract of insurance was the vehicle through which CKCU “agree[d] to comply with the bylaws of [Mutual Guaranty] as time to time amended,” and the parties agreed explicitly that the contract itself could “be amended by an amendment to the bylaws.”
FARMERS STATE BK. v. Prod. Cred. Ass'n of St. Cloud, 755 P.2d 518 (Kan. 1988). “K.S.A. 84-1-105 provides: “[W]hen a transaction bears a reasonable relation to this state and also to another state or nation the parties may agree that the law either of this state or of such other state or nation shall govern their rights and duties.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 84-1-105(1) — 10 cases
Brenner v. Oppenheimer & Co., 44 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2002). “84-1-105(1) provides that “when a transaction bears a reasonable relation to this state and also to another state or nation the parties may agree that the law either of this state or of such other state or nation shall govern their rights and duties.”
Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000). “K.S.A. § 84-1-105(1); Mo.Rev.Stal. § 400.”
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 89 P.3d 908 (Kan. 2004). “” The defendants’ arguments are premised on their view that the court must apply the laws of the various states in which plaintiffs reside, which defendants contend could involve most states.”
Ritchie Enter. v. Honeywell Bull, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 1041 (D. Kan. 1990). “K.S.A. 84-1-105(1). See National Equip. Rental, Ltd.”
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Sonic Dev. Corp., 546 F. Supp. 533 (D. Kan. 1982). “K.S.A. 84-1-105(1) provides appropriate choice-of-law considerations for cases arising under the U.”
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.