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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-101 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This Article shall be known and may be cited as "Uniform Commercial Code -- Sales."  
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 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: In Re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 613 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D. Me. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 613 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D. Me. 2009). “That is a contract for the sale of goods under Article 2 of Maine’s Uniform Commercial Code, 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-101, et seq. But the parties disagree over what that contract says about the terms of the payment relationship when the consumer swipes a card through the merchant’s…”
Moulton Cavity & Mold, Inc. v. Lyn-Flex Indus., Inc., 396 A.2d 1024 (Me. 1979). “The case concerns itself with an oral contract for the sale of goods which, as both parties agree, is governed by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 11 M.R.S.A. §§ 2-101 et seq. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with defendant that the presiding Justice committed…”
New England Explosives Corp. v. Maine Ledge Blasting Specialist, Inc., 542 F. Supp. 1343 (D. Me. 1982). “The theory of recovery under Count II is apparently predicated on article 2 of the Maine Uniform Commercial Code, 11 M.R.S.A. §§ 2-101 et seq. No claim is asserted under any federal statute, including the Miller Act, 40 U.”
Tanguay v. Seacoast Tractor Sales, Inc., 494 A.2d 1364 (Me. 1985). “§ 1471(8), refers to article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-101 et seq. (1976). If the legislature had intended that the definition of “dealer” in section 1471(2) be limited by the numerical test of 29 M.”
Cont'l Can Co. v. Poultry Processing, Inc., 649 F. Supp. 570 (D. Me. 1986). “), 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-101, et seq. (1964 & Supp.”
XL Sports World LLC v. Dynamic Sports Constr. Inc (D. Me. 2025). “See generally 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-101 (2025); Tex. Bus. & Com.”
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.