Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1102 (2026)
Applicability of articles.
✓ current as of July 2026
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 Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “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., 81 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 239 (Mich. 2013). “’” 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., 486 N.W.2d 612 (Mich. 1992). “[7] MCL 440.1102(2); MSA 19.1102(2). [8] MCL 440.”
Fodale v. Waste Mgmt. of Michigan, Inc, 718 N.W.2d 827 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “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…”
Cont'l Oil Co. v. Citizens Trust & Sav. Bank, 244 N.W.2d 243 (Mich. 1976). “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, 576 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. 1998). “” 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 Ctr., Inc., 188 N.W.2d 9 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). “” 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 Est. of Moukalled, 714 N.W.2d 400 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “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…”
Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Huron Valley Nat'l Bank, 271 N.W.2d 218 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “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, 242 N.W.2d 381 (Mich. 1976). “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…”
Metro. Alloys Corp. v. State Metals Indus., Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D. Mich. 2006). “§ 440.1102(2)(c) and citing Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 456 Mich.”
Power Press Sales Co. v. MSI Battle Creek Stamping, 604 N.W.2d 772 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “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.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1102(1) — 7 cases
In Re Est. of Moukalled, 714 N.W.2d 400 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “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, 604 N.W.2d 772 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “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., 429 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
KLT Indus., Inc. v. Eaton Corp., 505 F. Supp. 1072 (E.D. Mich. 1981).
NBD-Sandusky Bank v. Ritter, 471 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. 1991).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1102(2) — 3 cases
Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal a Sweebe, Inc., 81 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 239 (Mich. 2013). “’” 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., 486 N.W.2d 612 (Mich. 1992). “[7] MCL 440.1102(2); MSA 19.1102(2). [8] MCL 440.”
Funk v. Hover Trucking Co., 561 N.W.2d 479 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1102(2)(a) — 6 cases
People v. Dempster, 242 N.W.2d 381 (Mich. 1976). “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, 748 N.W.2d 887 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
Minsel v. El Rancho Mobile Home Ctr., Inc., 188 N.W.2d 9 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). “” 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.”
Int'l Harvester Credit Corp. v. Vos, 290 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
NBD-Sandusky Bank v. Ritter, 471 N.W.2d 340 (Mich. 1991).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1102(2)(c) — 8 cases
Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Huron Valley Nat'l Bank, 271 N.W.2d 218 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “We hold that when a check is converted, the payee-owner has suffered an injury to property within the meaning of MCL 600.”
Metro. Alloys Corp. v. State Metals Indus., Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D. Mich. 2006). “§ 440.1102(2)(c) and citing Shurlow v. Bonthuis, 456 Mich.”
Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Mfrs. Bank of Southfield, NA, 338 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
Power Press Sales Co. v. MSI Battle Creek Stamping, 604 N.W.2d 772 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “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, 530 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1102(3) — 8 cases
Fodale v. Waste Mgmt. of Michigan, Inc, 718 N.W.2d 827 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “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 Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “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, 326 N.W.2d 588 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
Eberhard Mfg. Co. v. Brown, 232 N.W.2d 378 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
Ramirez v. Bureau of State Lottery, 463 N.W.2d 245 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1102(5)(a) — 1 case
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Cuvrell (In Re F & T Contractors, Inc.), 17 B.R. 966 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1982).
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.