84-2-101.
Short title.
This article shall be known and may be cited as uniform commercial code—sales.
History:
L. 1965, ch. 564, § 18; January 1, 1966.
KANSAS COMMENT, 1996
1. Article 2 modernized the Kansas law of sales. For a brief historical overview, see Kansas Comment 1983 to this section. Article 2 continues to be highly influential, with its provisions applied by analogy to transactions not otherwise within its scope, see 1996 Kansas Comment 3 to 84-2-102, and incorporated into the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. In addition, Article 2 itself continues to evolve, as courts resolve uncertainties and deal with rapid technological change in both the contracting process and the subject matter of contracts. Indeed, at the time these comments are being written, a drafting committee is considering significant changes to Article 2 that one day soon may be before the Kansas legislature.
2. For a general discussion of the Kansas law of sales, see Paul B. Rasor, Kansas Law of Sales Under the Uniform Commercial Code (1981 & Supp. 1989). Other useful secondary sources include James J. White & Robert S. Summers, 1 Uniform Commercial Code (4th ed. Practitioner Treatise Series 1995); William H. Henning & George I. Wallach, The Law of Sales Under the Uniform Commercial Code (rev. ed. 1992 & Supp. 1995); William D. Hawkland, 1-3 Uniform Commercial Code Series (1995); Barkley Clark & Christopher Smith, The Law of Product Warranties (1984 & Supp.1996).
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Contract Law: A Clean Start for Lost Volume Lessees [Jetz Service Co. v. Salina Properties, 865 P.2d 1051 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993)]," Jonathan J. Lautt, 34 W.L.J. 136 (1994).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Rights of parties arising out of aborted sale of motor vehicle considered and determined. Stanturf v. Quality Dodge, Inc., 3 Kan. App. 2d 485, 486, 596 P.2d 1247.
2. Where lease agreements were intended to create security interests under K.S.A. 84-1-201(37)(b), provisions of Article 9 of UCC applicable. CIT Financial Services, Inc. v. Gott, 5 Kan. App. 2d 224, 229, 231, 615 P.2d 774.
3. Action to collect federal excise taxes on diesel fuel; a valid contract existed and breached by mutual mistake; defendant would have been unjustly enriched. Continental Oil Co. v. Ideal Truck Lines, Inc., 7 Kan. App. 2d 153, 156, 638 P.2d 954 (1982).
4. Agreement between title insurance agency and title insurer was contract for services; article 2 of UCC inapplicable. Columbian Nat. Title Ins. v. Township Title Serv., 659 F. Supp. 796, 801 (1987).
5. Whether issue of breach of duty of good faith by supplier in negotiating final contract precluded summary judgment examined. Kansas Mun. Gas Agency v. Vesta Energy Co., Inc., 840 F. Supp. 814, 820 (1993).
6. Whether federal court in diversity action should look to both states UCC interpretations examined. M.K.C. Equipment Co. Inc. v. M.A.I.L. Code, Inc., 843 F. Supp. 679, 683 (1994).
Golden v. Den-Mat Corp., 276 P.3d 773 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3דSo she sued them in Sedgwick County District Court on the grounds the veneers breached implied warranties applicable to goods sold under Article 2 — -Sales of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), K.S.A. 84-2-101 et seq., and the transaction entailed deceptive acts and practices…”
Gonzalez v. Pepsico, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 2007). · cites it 4ד1 Under Kansas law, plaintiffs allege breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Article II of the Kansas Uniform Commercial Code, K.S.A. § 84-2-101 et seq. (Count I), unfair trade practices under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.”
M.K.C. Equip. Co. v. M.A.I.L. Code, Inc., 843 F. Supp. 679 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 2ד, and in the Kansas statutes at K.S.A. § 84-2-101, et seq. 2 . Based on this court’s conclusion that the forum selection clause did not become a part of the contract, it is unnecessary to determine whether the "confirmation” was sent within a reasonable time, as required by §…”
Full Faith Church of Love West, Inc. v. Hoover Treated Wood Prods., Inc., 224 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Kan. 2002). · cites it 4דDefendants urge the Court to dismiss the tort and strict liability claims (Counts IV, V and VI) because plaintiff has suffered only economic loss. In addition, defendants seek to dismiss the breach of warranty claims (Counts I, II and III) because Article 2 of the Uniform…”
Corral v. Rollins Prot. Servs. Co., 732 P.2d 1260 (Kan. 1987). “” Rollins, on the other hand, contended that as there was no sale of goods there could be no warranty, express or implied, because the Uniform Commercial Code, K.S.A. 84-2-101 el seq., (UCC) applies only to sales.”
Limestone Farms, Inc. v. Deere & Co., 29 P.3d 457 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “, and of the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2—Sales, K.S.A. 84-2-101 et seq. The trial court granted defendants summaiy judgment on all counts.”
Delhomme Indus., Inc. v. Houston Beechcraft, Inc., 735 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1984). “The district court then determined that, under applicable provisions of the Kansas Uniform Commercial Code, enacted in Kansas as Kan. Stat.Ann. § 84-2-101 et seq. [hereinafter “Kansas UCC”], the seller had breached an express contractual warranty to Delhomme and that the limited…”
Columbian Nat'l Title Ins. v. Twp. Title Servs., Inc., 659 F. Supp. 796 (D. Kan. 1987). “Before addressing the merits of these defenses, we must address two preliminary issues. First, we must decide whether the Uniform Commercial Code [hereinafter the UCC] is applicable to the facts of this case.”
Stanturf v. Quality Dodge, Inc., 596 P.2d 1247 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “The issues in this case are governed by K.S.A. 84-2-101 et seq. Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code governs sales of goods (K.”
N111KJ, LLC v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 676 F. App'x 887 (11th Cir. 2017). “Third, plaintiff claimed that the disenrollment was also a breach of contract under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which Kansas had adopted, Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 84-2-101 to -725. Cessna moved to dismiss all three claims for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule…”
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.