Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-208 (2026)

Repealed, 2006

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

Catchline at repeal: Course of performance or practical construction. History: Created 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, sec. 2-208, effective July 1, 1960.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1968–2004 · leading case: Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Hous. Auth., 132 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2004).
Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Hous. Auth., 132 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2004). · cites it 2× “2-202(a); KRS 355.2-208(1); KRS 355.2-314(3); KRS 355.”
A & a Mech., Inc. v. Thermal Equip. Sales, Inc., 998 S.W.2d 505 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “1-205) or by course of performance (KRS 355.2-208); and (b) by evidence of consistent additional terms unless the court finds the writing to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement.”
Kentucky Utils. Co. v. South East Coal Co., 836 S.W.2d 392 (Ky. 1992). · cites it 4× “" "The trial court placed considerable emphasis on course of performance or practical construction in KRS 355.2-208. This section provides that an accepted or acquiesced-in course of performance is relevant to determining the meaning of an agreement.”
Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. Middlesboro Motor Sales, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 409 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “To support its contention the motor company cites KRS 355.2-208 on the effect of a course of conduct on a contract.”
Wickliffe Farms, Inc. v. Owensboro Grain Co., 684 S.W.2d 17 (Ky. Ct. App. 1984). “1-205) or by course of performance (KRS 355.2-208); and (b) by evidence of consistent additional terms unless the court finds the writing to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement.”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-208(1): 1 case
Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Hous. Auth., 132 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2004). “2-202(a); KRS 355.2-208(1); KRS 355.2-314(3); 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.