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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1204 (2026)

Value for rights.

✓ 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


440.1204 Value for rights.

Sec. 1204.

    Except as otherwise provided in articles 3, 4, and 5, a person gives value for rights if the person acquires them for any of the following:

    (a) In return for a binding commitment to extend credit or for the extension of immediately available credit, whether or not drawn upon and whether or not a charge-back is provided for in the event of difficulties in collection.

    (b) As security for, or in total or partial satisfaction of, a preexisting claim.

    (c) By accepting delivery under a preexisting contract for purchase.

    (d) In return for any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1973–2013 · leading case: Eaton Corp. v. Magnavox Co., 581 F. Supp. 1514 (E.D. Mich. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Eaton Corp. v. Magnavox Co., 581 F. Supp. 1514 (E.D. Mich. 1984). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.1204(2). Eaton argues that it had repeatedly notified Magnavox that many of the controllers had faulty solder connections, and relies on this as adequate notice of the controllers’ defects.”
North Am. Steel Corp. v. Siderius, Inc., 254 N.W.2d 899 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “MCLA 440.1204(2); MSA 19.1204(2). In view of the attempts made to effectuate a price adjustment, once inspection was completed and the goods were determined to be nonconforming, the arbitration panel correctly found that rejection and notification came within a reasonable time…”
KLT Indus., Inc. v. Eaton Corp., 505 F. Supp. 1072 (E.D. Mich. 1981). “The law provides that where time for delivery is or becomes indefinite by waiver delivery must be made within a reasonable time, taking into consideration the nature of the goods, extent of the seller’s knowledge of the buyer’s intentions and nature of the market.”
Intervale Steel v. Borg & Beck Div., Borg-Warner, 578 F. Supp. 1081 (E.D. Mich. 1984). “§ 440.1204(2) ("What is a reasonable time for taking any action depends on the nature, purpose and circumstances of such action.”
Barron v. Edwards, 206 N.W.2d 508 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “As to what constitutes a reasonable time, MCLA 440.1204(2); MSA 19.1204(2), states: "What is a reasonable time for taking any action depends on the nature, purpose and circumstances of such action.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Bendix Corp., 268 N.W.2d 305 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “2607 and MCL 440.1204; MSA 19.1204. 3 Plaintiffs letter, dated May 16, 1973, stated: "I have been instructed by Ford Motor Company to advise you as the attorney for Bendix that, in the event that trial of this matter results in judgment against Ford, that Ford Motor Company will…”
Seton Co. v. Lear Corp, 198 F. App'x 496 (6th Cir. 2006). “Although recognizing that the concept of a “reasonable time” for sending a written confirmation of the agreement “depends on the nature, purpose and circumstances of such action,” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.1204 (2), Lear argues that the 13-month period between the making of…”
Bev Smith, Inc. v. Atwell, 301 Mich. App. 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “]” 12 Accordingly, the salient question is whether plaintiff notified defendant of the alleged breach of contract within a reasonable time.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1204(2) — 6 cases
Eaton Corp. v. Magnavox Co., 581 F. Supp. 1514 (E.D. Mich. 1984). “Mich. Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.1204(2). Eaton argues that it had repeatedly notified Magnavox that many of the controllers had faulty solder connections, and relies on this as adequate notice of the controllers’ defects.”
North Am. Steel Corp. v. Siderius, Inc., 254 N.W.2d 899 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “MCLA 440.1204(2); MSA 19.1204(2). In view of the attempts made to effectuate a price adjustment, once inspection was completed and the goods were determined to be nonconforming, the arbitration panel correctly found that rejection and notification came within a reasonable time…”
KLT Indus., Inc. v. Eaton Corp., 505 F. Supp. 1072 (E.D. Mich. 1981). “The law provides that where time for delivery is or becomes indefinite by waiver delivery must be made within a reasonable time, taking into consideration the nature of the goods, extent of the seller’s knowledge of the buyer’s intentions and nature of the market.”
Intervale Steel v. Borg & Beck Div., Borg-Warner, 578 F. Supp. 1081 (E.D. Mich. 1984). “§ 440.1204(2) ("What is a reasonable time for taking any action depends on the nature, purpose and circumstances of such action.”
Barron v. Edwards, 206 N.W.2d 508 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “As to what constitutes a reasonable time, MCLA 440.1204(2); MSA 19.1204(2), states: "What is a reasonable time for taking any action depends on the nature, purpose and circumstances of such action.”
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.