Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 440 / Act 174 of 1962

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1102

Applicability of articles.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.1102 Applicability of articles.

Sec. 1102.

    This article applies to a transaction to the extent that it is governed by another article of this act.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 86, Eff. July 1, 2013

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case: Prime Financial Services LLC v. Vinton
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Prime Financial Services LLC v. Vinton (2008) michctapp · cites it 4× “1102, comment 2; see also Becker v Nat’l Bank and Trust Co, 222 Va 716, 719-721; 284 SE2d 793 (1981) (noting that parties are not able to vary the concepts and definitions of the UCC by agreement and, therefore, the parties before the court could not agree to permit an assignee…”
Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal a Sweebe, Inc. (2013) mich · cites it 2× “’” Neibarger v Universal Cooperatives, Inc, 439 Mich 512, 519 ; 486 NW2d 612 (1992), quoting MCL 440.1102(2) (second alteration in original).”
Neibarger v. Universal Coopertives, Inc. (1992) mich · cites it 2× “[7] MCL 440.1102(2); MSA 19.1102(2). [8] MCL 440.”
Fodale v. Waste Management of Michigan, Inc (2006) michctapp · cites it 2× “Moreover, the parties could not waive this obligation: The effect of provisions of this act may be varied by agreement, except as otherwise provided in this act and except that the obligations of good faith, *841 diligence, reasonableness and care prescribed by this act may not…”
Continental Oil Co. v. Citizens Trust & Savings Bank (1976) mich · cites it 3× “See MCLA 440.1102; MSA 19.1102. *215 The Official UCC Comment to article 1, § 1-102 elaborates on this directive as follows: "This Act is drawn to provide flexibility so that, since it is intended to be a semi-permanent piece of legislation, it will provide its own machinery for…”
Shurlow v. Bonthuis (1998) mich · cites it 3× “” MCL 440.1102; MSA 19.1102. 12 In construing the act in accordance with its purposes, the text of each section should be read in the light of the purpose and policy of the rule or principle in question.”
Minsel v. El Rancho Mobile Home Center, Inc. (1971) michctapp · cites it 4× “” An examination of the UCC as enacted in Michigan reveals MCLA § 440.1102 (Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19.1102), which deals with the construction of the act and its purposes.”
In Re Estate of Moukalled (2006) michctapp “9104(j), or that he was entitled to the lots pursuant to a land contract mortgage, a contract interest under the common law, or an equitable lien. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, and the probate court, concluding that a palpable error had occurred when it failed, as…”
Continental Casualty Co. v. Huron Valley National Bank (1978) michctapp · cites it 2× “We hold that when a check is converted, the payee-owner has suffered an injury to property within the meaning of MCL 600.”
People v. Dempster (1976) mich “The Uniform Securities Act, however, is intended to prevent an offering to the public of securities without first giving the Securities Bureau an opportunity to investigate the venture and determine whether sound policy justifies permitting the issuer to offer these securities…”
Metropolitan Alloys Corp. v. State Metals Industries, Inc. (2006) mied “§ 440.1102(2)(c) and citing Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 456 Mich.”
Power Press Sales Co. v. MSI Battle Creek Stamping (2000) michctapp · cites it 2× “Pursuant to MCL 440.1102(1); MSA 19.1102(1) the Uniform Commercial Code (ucc) “is to be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies.”
Show all 46 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1102(1) — 7 cases
In Re Estate of Moukalled (2006) michctapp “9104(j), or that he was entitled to the lots pursuant to a land contract mortgage, a contract interest under the common law, or an equitable lien. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, and the probate court, concluding that a palpable error had occurred when it failed, as…”
Power Press Sales Co. v. MSI Battle Creek Stamping (2000) michctapp “Pursuant to MCL 440.1102(1); MSA 19.1102(1) the Uniform Commercial Code (ucc) “is to be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies.”
Yamaha Motor Corp., USA v. Tri-City Motors & Sports, Inc. (1988) michctapp
KLT Industries, Inc. v. Eaton Corp. (1981) mied
NBD-Sandusky Bank v. Ritter (1991) mich
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1102(2) — 3 cases
Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal a Sweebe, Inc. (2013) mich “’” Neibarger v Universal Cooperatives, Inc, 439 Mich 512, 519 ; 486 NW2d 612 (1992), quoting MCL 440.1102(2) (second alteration in original).”
Neibarger v. Universal Coopertives, Inc. (1992) mich “[7] MCL 440.1102(2); MSA 19.1102(2). [8] MCL 440.”
Funk v. Hover Trucking Co. (1997) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1102(2)(a) — 6 cases
People v. Dempster (1976) mich “The Uniform Securities Act, however, is intended to prevent an offering to the public of securities without first giving the Securities Bureau an opportunity to investigate the venture and determine whether sound policy justifies permitting the issuer to offer these securities…”
Davis v. Forest River, Inc (2008) michctapp
Minsel v. El Rancho Mobile Home Center, Inc. (1971) michctapp “” An examination of the UCC as enacted in Michigan reveals MCLA § 440.1102 (Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19.1102), which deals with the construction of the act and its purposes.”
International Harvester Credit Corp. v. Vos (1980) michctapp
NBD-Sandusky Bank v. Ritter (1991) mich
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1102(2)(c) — 8 cases
Continental Casualty Co. v. Huron Valley National Bank (1978) michctapp “We hold that when a check is converted, the payee-owner has suffered an injury to property within the meaning of MCL 600.”
Metropolitan Alloys Corp. v. State Metals Industries, Inc. (2006) mied “§ 440.1102(2)(c) and citing Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 456 Mich.”
Insurance Co. of North America v. Manufacturers Bank of Southfield, NA (1983) michctapp
Power Press Sales Co. v. MSI Battle Creek Stamping (2000) michctapp “Pursuant to MCL 440.1102(1); MSA 19.1102(1) the Uniform Commercial Code (ucc) “is to be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies.”
Higgins v. Lauritzen (1995) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1102(3) — 8 cases
Fodale v. Waste Management of Michigan, Inc (2006) michctapp “Moreover, the parties could not waive this obligation: The effect of provisions of this act may be varied by agreement, except as otherwise provided in this act and except that the obligations of good faith, *841 diligence, reasonableness and care prescribed by this act may not…”
Prime Financial Services LLC v. Vinton (2008) michctapp “1102, comment 2; see also Becker v Nat’l Bank and Trust Co, 222 Va 716, 719-721; 284 SE2d 793 (1981) (noting that parties are not able to vary the concepts and definitions of the UCC by agreement and, therefore, the parties before the court could not agree to permit an assignee…”
Wayne Bank v. Dore (1982) michctapp
Eberhard Manufacturing Co. v. Brown (1975) michctapp
Ramirez v. Bureau of State Lottery (1990) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1102(5)(a) — 1 case
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Cuvrell (In Re F & T Contractors, Inc.) (1982) mieb
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.