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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 1-204 (2026)

Time; reasonable times; "seasonably"

✓ 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(REPEALED)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).
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 3 cases, 1985–1988 · leading case: M.K. Assocs. v. Stowell Prods., Inc., 697 F. Supp. 20 (D. Me. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
M.K. Assocs. v. Stowell Prods., Inc., 697 F. Supp. 20 (D. Me. 1988). “11 M.R.S.A. § 1-204. The policies underlying the requirement of timely notice are first, to enable the seller to cure or replace, second, to give the seller an opportunity to prepare for negotiation and litigation, and third, to ensure finality.”
Schiavi Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Gagne, 510 A.2d 236 (Me. 1986). “Defendant knew that the mobile home had to be specially constructed. Most importantly, when informed that the mobile home was ready for delivery, she agreed to a July 5 delivery without objecting to the fact that eight weeks had passed since the contract was signed.”
Lingley v. E.B. Kitfield & Co. (In re NEPSCO, Inc.), 49 B.R. 152 (Bankr. D. Me. 1985). · cites it 2× “Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, § 1-204(3) (1964).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 1-204(2) — 2 cases
Schiavi Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Gagne, 510 A.2d 236 (Me. 1986). “Defendant knew that the mobile home had to be specially constructed. Most importantly, when informed that the mobile home was ready for delivery, she agreed to a July 5 delivery without objecting to the fact that eight weeks had passed since the contract was signed.”
Lingley v. E.B. Kitfield & Co. (In re NEPSCO, Inc.), 49 B.R. 152 (Bankr. D. Me. 1985). “Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, § 1-204(3) (1964).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 1-204(3) — 1 case
Lingley v. E.B. Kitfield & Co. (In re NEPSCO, Inc.), 49 B.R. 152 (Bankr. D. Me. 1985). “Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 11, § 1-204(3) (1964).”
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.