Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 355
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-102 (2026)

Scope -- Certain security and other transactions excluded from this

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

article.

(1) Unless the context otherwise requires, and except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, this article applies to transactions in goods and, in the case of a hybrid transaction, it applies to the extent provided in subsection (2) of this section.

(2) In a hybrid transaction:

(a) If the sale-of-goods aspects do not predominate, only the provisions of this article which relate primarily to the sale-of-goods aspects of the transaction apply, and the provisions that relate primarily to the transaction as a whole do not apply; and

(b) If the sale-of-goods aspects predominate, this article applies to the transaction but does not preclude application in appropriate circumstances of other law to aspects of the transaction which do not relate to the sale of goods.

(3) This article does not:

(a) Apply to a transaction that, even though in the form of an unconditional contract to sell or present sale, operates only to create a security interest; or

(b) Impair or repeal any statute regulating sales to consumers, farmers, or other specified classes of buyers. Effective: January 1, 2025 History: Repealed and reenacted 2024 Ky. Acts ch. 10, sec. 5, effective January 1, 2025. -- Created 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, sec. 2-102, effective July 1, 1960.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Norcold, Inc., 849 F.3d 328 (6th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Norcold, Inc., 849 F.3d 328 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “(Kentucky Consumer Protection Act); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-102 (exempting statutes regulating sales to consumers from modification by Article II of the UCC).”
MidAmerican Distrib., Inc. v. Clarification Tech., Inc., 807 F. Supp. 2d 646 (E.D. Ky. 2011). “” KRS 355.2-102. Defendant CTI argues that the alleged agreement is one for the sale of goods (i.”
Riffe v. Black, 548 S.W.2d 175 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). “KRS 355.2-102 sets out the scope of the sales provisions of the commercial code.”
Marley Cooling Tower Co. v. Caldwell Energy & Env't, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 2d 651 (W.D. Ky. 2003). “KRS 355.2-102. Kentucky has adopted Article 2 of the UCC, governing sales, and codified that part at KRS 355.”
Wehr Constructors, Inc. v. Steel Fabricators, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 51 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988). “KRS 355.2-102. “Goods” are defined as “all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (article 8) and things in action.”
T-Birds, Inc. v. Thoroughbred Helicoptor Serv., Inc., 540 F. Supp. 548 (E.D. Ky. 1982). “This issue, however, need not be addressed because this Court concludes, and the record clearly establishes without doubt, that the transaction between the parties did not involve a transaction in goods within the context of KRS 355.2-102, but involved a rendition of services in…”
Buckner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (W.D. Ky. 2025). · cites it 8× “In response, Buckner states that “KRS §355.2-102(3) provides that KRS §355.”
Curtis Green D/B/A Green's Toyota of Lexington v. Phillip Frazier (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “]” KRS 355.2-102. It provides that a buyer injured by a seller’s breach of warranty may recover both incidental and consequential damages.”
KY Closeouts, LLC v. Eagle Trace, Inc. (W.D. Ky. 2023). “See KRS 355.2-102 (“Unless the context otherwise requires, this article applies to transactions in goods .”
Hicks v. Express Emp. Professionals (W.D. Ky. 2023). “See § 355.2-102. And the allegations in the complaint establish that the transaction between Hicks and Express involved potential employment rather than a transaction in goods.”
OGGUSA, Inc. v. Louisville Dryer Co. (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2022). “§§ 355.2-102, 355.2- 105(1), 355.2-106(1).”
Gordian Med., Inc. v. Accurate Healthcare, Inc. (M.D. Tenn. 2025). “Sewer (2) In a hybrid transaction: (a) If the sale-of-goods aspects do not predominate, only the provisions of this article which relate primarily to the sale-of-goods aspects of the transaction apply, and the provisions that relate primarily to the transaction as a whole do not…”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-102(3): 1 case
Buckner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (W.D. Ky. 2025). “In response, Buckner states that “KRS §355.2-102(3) provides that KRS §355.”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-102(3)(a): 1 case
Buckner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (W.D. Ky. 2025). “In response, Buckner states that “KRS §355.2-102(3) provides that KRS §355.”
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.