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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1103 (2026)

Construction of act.

✓ 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


440.1103 Construction of act.

Sec. 1103.

    (1) This act must be liberally construed and applied to promote the following underlying purposes and policies:

    (a) To simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions.

    (b) To permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties.

    (c) To make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.

    (2) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this act, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, or other validating or invalidating cause shall supplement its provisions.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1968–2023 · leading case: Gen. Motors Corp. v. Alumi-Bunk, Inc., 757 N.W.2d 859 (Mich. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Alumi-Bunk, Inc., 757 N.W.2d 859 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 8× “[ [10] ] MCL 440.1103 provides the basis for plaintiff's assertion that there is an exception to the economic loss doctrine for claims of fraud: Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [the UCC], the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law…”
Grosse Pointe Law Firm, PC v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, 894 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “Without differentiating between warranty and remedy as the majority does today, other courts have acknowledged the distinction between an express warranty under the UCC and a written warranty under the MMWA, and referred to non-UCC law to determine when a cause of action accrues…”
Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal a Sweebe, Inc., 81 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 239 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 2× “Whether an agreement has legal consequences is determined by the provisions of this act, if applicable; otherwise by the law of contracts [MCL 440.1103]. (Compare “Contract”.) Applying these definitions, the question is whether an “amount owed on open account” claim constitutes…”
Neibarger v. Universal Coopertives, Inc., 486 N.W.2d 612 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 2× “[MCL 440.1103; MSA 19.1103.] [N]or does this article impair or repeal any statute regulating sales to consumers, farmers or other specified classes of buyers.”
Horizon Lawn Maint., Inc. v. Columbus-Kenworth, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 3d 631 (E.D. Mich. 2016). · cites it 4× “7 Second, Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1103 recognizes that common law rules continue to govern commercial transactions in goods to the extent that those rules are not inconsistent with the text of the Code or with the policies underlying the Code.”
Huron Tool & Eng'g Co. v. Precision Consulting Servs., Inc., 532 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “C Plaintiff asserts that the ucc explicitly preserves its right to maintain a common-law fraud action independent of its contractual claims, citing MCL 440.1103; MSA 19.1103: Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this act, the principles of law and equity, including…”
Iverson Indus., Inc. v. Metal Mgmt. Ohio, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 2d 911 (E.D. Mich. 2007). · cites it 2× “Section 2-208(3) states that “course of performance shall be relevant to show a waiver or modification of any term inconsistent with such course of performance.”
Matter of Cliff's Ridge Skiing Corp., 123 B.R. 753 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1991). · cites it 2× “” Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.1103. 14 . The amount of money ultimately received by a party pursuant to a subordination agreement may be further limited by the value of the collateral which is subject to such agreement.”
Conagra, Inc v. Farmers State Bank, 602 N.W.2d 390 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “MCL 440.1103; MSA 19.1103. Therefore, in the absence of any directly controlling UCC provisions, we resolve questions concerning the scope and effect of subordination agreements according to general legal principles, here, the law of contract inteipretation.”
Yamaha Motor Corp., USA v. Tri-City Motors & Sports, Inc., 429 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “MCL 440.1103; MSA 19.1103. When uniform laws such as the ucc have been adopted by several states, the courts of one state may refer to decisions from another state and may construe the statutes in accordance with the construction given by that state.”
Metro. Alloys Corp. v. Considar Metal Mktg., Inc., 615 F. Supp. 2d 589 (E.D. Mich. 2009). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1103 . 12 . The Court does not share Defendant's view, as stated in its reply brief, that Mr.”
Kelsey-Hayes Co. v. Galtaco Redlaw Castings Corp., 749 F. Supp. 794 (E.D. Mich. 1990). “§ 440.1103 states that, absent explicit language to the contrary, the Uniform Commercial Code merely supplements the common law of duress and coercion.”
Show all 35 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1103(2) — 3 cases
Grosse Pointe Law Firm, PC v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, 894 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Without differentiating between warranty and remedy as the majority does today, other courts have acknowledged the distinction between an express warranty under the UCC and a written warranty under the MMWA, and referred to non-UCC law to determine when a cause of action accrues…”
North Shore Bank Fsb v. Sandra M Slade (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
R a D Constr. Inc v. Delrice Davis (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
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.