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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1205

Time for taking action.

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

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.1205 Time for taking action.

Sec. 1205.

    (1) Whether a time for taking an action required by this act is reasonable depends on the nature, purpose, and circumstances of the action.

    (2) An action is taken seasonably if it is taken at or within the time agreed or, if no time is agreed, at or within a reasonable time.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2021 · leading case: Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal a Sweebe, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal a Sweebe, Inc. (2013) mich · cites it 2× “1201(3)6 defines “agreement” as follows: “Agreement” means the bargain of the parties in fact as found in their language or by implication from other circumstances including course of dealing or usage of trade or course of performance as provided in this act [MCL 440.1205 and…”
Ambassador Steel Co. v. Ewald Steel Co. (1971) michctapp · cites it 4× “MCLA § 440.1205(2) (Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19-.”
Sullivan Industries, Inc. v. Double Seal Glass Co. (1991) michctapp “” In this case, the evidence established that Double Seal’s written warranty clearly and expressly limited Sullivan’s remedy to replacement of the failed igus; that on at least three occasions, when failure rates were greater than normal, Double Seal either voluntarily or by…”
Latimer v. William Mueller & Son, Inc. (1986) michctapp “See MCL 440.1205; MSA 19.1205. We also find that limiting the plaintiffs recovery to the purchase price of the seed would lead to an unconscionable result.”
Dura Global Technologies, Inc. v. Magna Donnelly Corporation (2009) mied · cites it 2× “§ 440.1205(2), which mirrors the language in UCC § 1-205(2), instructs this court to take into account the particular circumstances of the usage of trade in the industry, defined as follows: *796 A usage of trade is any practice or method of dealing having such regularity of…”
Boyd v. Toyobo America, Inc. (In Re Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.) (2009) miwb · cites it 4× “The existence and scope of such as usage are to be proved as facts” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.1205 (2). 6 .”
Power Press Sales Co. v. MSI Battle Creek Stamping (2000) michctapp “See MCL 440.1205; MSA 19.205. Because plaintiff has failed to present any evidence of a previous course of dealing in support of this theory, we find no basis for reaching a conclusion contrary to the above clear guidance.”
Eberhard Manufacturing Co. v. Brown (1975) michctapp · cites it 2× “See MCLA 440.1205; MSA 19.1205. It was not proof that the parties had agreed, expressly or in fact, as to who had the risk of loss.”
Carhartt, Inc. v. Innovative Textiles, Inc. (2021) ca6 “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1205 (1); see also Kelynack v.”
Flamm v. Scherer (1972) michctapp “1 MCLA 440.1205; MSA 19.1205 2 MCLA 440.2208; MSA 19.”
Reinhardt v. Bennett (1973) michctapp “MCLA 440.1205; MSA 19.1205. Although the complaint did not - specifically allege that the requisite notice was given, at the very least the plaintiffs should have been afforded the opportunity to amend their complaint to frame this issue before being summarily dismissed from…”
Extrusion Painting, Inc. v. Awnings Unlimited, Inc. (2002) ca6 · cites it 2× “§ 1-205; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.1205 . Where a reconciling construction of the text is not reasonable, however, the “express terms of an agreement” control.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1205(1) — 1 case
Koviack Irrigation and Farm Services v. Maple Row Farms LLC (2017) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1205(2) — 2 cases
Dura Global Technologies, Inc. v. Magna Donnelly Corporation (2009) mied “§ 440.1205(2), which mirrors the language in UCC § 1-205(2), instructs this court to take into account the particular circumstances of the usage of trade in the industry, defined as follows: *796 A usage of trade is any practice or method of dealing having such regularity of…”
Ambassador Steel Co. v. Ewald Steel Co. (1971) michctapp “MCLA § 440.1205(2) (Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19-.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1205(3) — 1 case
Ambassador Steel Co. v. Ewald Steel Co. (1971) michctapp “MCLA § 440.1205(2) (Stat Ann 1964 Rev § 19-.”
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.