Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 11
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 1-105 (2026)

Territorial application of Title; parties' power to choose applicable law

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 526, §1 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 696, §117 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 636, §1 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 805, §2 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 812, §1 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 349, §26 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 429, §C2 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 699, Pt. B, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 699, Pt. B, §28 (AFF). PL 2009, c. 325, Pt. A, §1 (RP). PL 2009, c. 325, Pt. A, §4 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1967–1984 · leading case: Maine Gas & Appliances, Inc. v. Siegel, 438 A.2d 888 (Me. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maine Gas & Appliances, Inc. v. Siegel, 438 A.2d 888 (Me. 1981). “There is no need for us to decide whether the commercial transaction giving rise to the action *890 here on appeal bears “an appropriate relation to this State,” enabling us to apply the law of Maine to the exclusion of that of another jurisdiction.”
Lincoln Pulp & Paper Co., Inc. v. Dravo Corp., 445 F. Supp. 507 (D. Me. 1977). “, see 11 M.R.S.A. § 1-105(1). In any event, the Code has been adopted in all states having any significant relationship with the contract, and the parties further agree that the resolution of the' issues presently before the Court does not depend upon which jurisdiction’s law is…”
Argus Mgmt. Corp. v. Pillsbury Co. (In Re Hillcrest Foods, Inc.), 40 B.R. 360 (Bankr. D. Me. 1984). “Pursuant to Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, § 1-105(1) (1964), the parties may agree that the law of another state shall govern a transaction when it "bears a reasonable relation” to that state.”
Dole Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 269 F. Supp. 72 (D. Me. 1967). “6, 1960), the Uniform Commercial Code § 1-105, Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, § 1-105 (1964) and comment following, the substantive law of Maine would still apply, for the contract was to be performed in Maine and Maine plainly had all the significant contacts with it.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 1-105(1) — 2 cases
Lincoln Pulp & Paper Co., Inc. v. Dravo Corp., 445 F. Supp. 507 (D. Me. 1977). “, see 11 M.R.S.A. § 1-105(1). In any event, the Code has been adopted in all states having any significant relationship with the contract, and the parties further agree that the resolution of the' issues presently before the Court does not depend upon which jurisdiction’s law is…”
Argus Mgmt. Corp. v. Pillsbury Co. (In Re Hillcrest Foods, Inc.), 40 B.R. 360 (Bankr. D. Me. 1984). “Pursuant to Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, § 1-105(1) (1964), the parties may agree that the law of another state shall govern a transaction when it "bears a reasonable relation” to that state.”
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.