Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 1-106 (2026)

Remedies to be liberally administered

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 2009, c. 325, Pt. A, §1 (RP). PL 2009, c. 325, Pt. A, §4 (AFF).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1984–2006 · leading case: Muehlbauer v. Gen. Motors Corp., 431 F. Supp. 2d 847 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
Muehlbauer v. Gen. Motors Corp., 431 F. Supp. 2d 847 (N.D. Ill. 2006). “” 11 MRS § 1-106(1); Crescent Lumber Co. v.”
State v. Reynolds, 604 A.2d 911 (Me. 1992). “11 M.R.S.A. § 1-106; State v. Giglio, 441 A.”
Argus Mgmt. Corp. v. Pillsbury Co. (In Re Hillcrest Foods, Inc.), 40 B.R. 360 (Bankr. D. Me. 1984). “Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, § 9-113(3); Data General Corp.”
Porter v. Pfizer Hosp. Prods. Grp., Inc., 783 F. Supp. 1466 (D. Me. 1992). “Here, however, Pfizer is asking the Court either to believe that the cup was a gift or to adopt a sterile and formalistic view of Maine law completely at odds with the statutory requirement that the remedies provided to an aggrieved buyer be liberally construed.”
Masters Mach. Co. v. Brookfield Athletic Shoe Co., 663 F. Supp. 439 (D. Me. 1987). “§§ 1-203, 2-103 (1964); see also 11 M.R.S.A. § 1-106, Comment 1 (1964) (“damages must be minimized”).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 1-106(1) — 2 cases
Muehlbauer v. Gen. Motors Corp., 431 F. Supp. 2d 847 (N.D. Ill. 2006). “” 11 MRS § 1-106(1); Crescent Lumber Co. v.”
Argus Mgmt. Corp. v. Pillsbury Co. (In Re Hillcrest Foods, Inc.), 40 B.R. 360 (Bankr. D. Me. 1984). “Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, § 9-113(3); Data General Corp.”
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.