Go Syfert

Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-104 (2026)

Definitions: "merchant"; "between merchants"; "financing agency"

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1). Merchant. "Merchant" means a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to whom such knowledge or skill may be attributed by his employment of an agent or broker or other intermediary who by his occupation holds himself out as having such knowledge or skill.

(2). Financing agency. "Financing agency" means a bank, finance company or other person who in the ordinary course of business makes advances against goods or documents of title or who by arrangement with either the seller or the buyer intervenes in ordinary course to make or collect payment due or claimed under the contract for sale, as by purchasing or paying the seller's draft or making advances against it or by merely taking it for collection whether or not documents of title accompany or are associated with the draft. "Financing agency" includes also a bank or other person who similarly intervenes between persons who are in the position of seller and buyer in respect to the goods (section 2‑707).

[PL 2009, c. 324, Pt. B, §5 (AMD); PL 2009, c. 324, Pt. B, §48 (AFF).]

(3). Between merchants. "Between merchants" means in any transaction with respect to which both parties are chargeable with the knowledge or skill of merchants.

SECTION HISTORY

PL 2009, c. 324, Pt. B, §5 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 324, Pt. B, §48 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1984–2013 · leading case: Cives Corp. v. Callier Steel Pipe & Tube, Inc., 482 A.2d 852 (Me. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cives Corp. v. Callier Steel Pipe & Tube, Inc., 482 A.2d 852 (Me. 1984). · cites it 3× “See Uniform Commercial Code § 2-104 comment 1, reprinted in 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-104 (1964). Callier further contends that by subcontracting with Lanan for delivery by January 5, 1978, Callier showed its lack of agreement to any January 3,1978, delivery date.”

Lucien Bourque, Inc. v. Cronkite, 557 A.2d 193 (Me. 1989). “…a real estate broker engaged in his first development project, was a merchant within the meaning of the U.C.C. See 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-104(1), (3) (1964).”

Cont'l Can Co. v. Poultry Processing, Inc., 649 F. Supp. 570 (D. Me. 1986). “Defendant asserted at trial that there was insufficient evidence to establish that it was a merchant within the meaning of 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-104(3) (1964). The Court finds no basis for this assertion.”

Packgen v. Berry Plastics Corp., 973 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D. Me. 2013). “; see 11 M.R.S. § 2-104(1) (defining “merchant”); Def.”

Voss v. Woodmaster of Maine, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2005). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff goes on to argue that defendant is a merchant as defined by 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-104 and a definition that, "consumer goods and services are those new or used goods and services, including mobile homes, that are used or bought primarily for personal, family or household…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-104(1) — 2 cases

Lucien Bourque, Inc. v. Cronkite, 557 A.2d 193 (Me. 1989). “…a real estate broker engaged in his first development project, was a merchant within the meaning of the U.C.C. See 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-104(1), (3) (1964).”

Packgen v. Berry Plastics Corp., 973 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D. Me. 2013). “; see 11 M.R.S. § 2-104(1) (defining “merchant”); Def.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-104(3) — 2 cases

Cives Corp. v. Callier Steel Pipe & Tube, Inc., 482 A.2d 852 (Me. 1984). “See Uniform Commercial Code § 2-104 comment 1, reprinted in 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-104 (1964). Callier further contends that by subcontracting with Lanan for delivery by January 5, 1978, Callier showed its lack of agreement to any January 3,1978, delivery date.”

Cont'l Can Co. v. Poultry Processing, Inc., 649 F. Supp. 570 (D. Me. 1986). “Defendant asserted at trial that there was insufficient evidence to establish that it was a merchant within the meaning of 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-104(3) (1964). The Court finds no basis for this assertion.”

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.