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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2102 (2026)

Application of article; security and other transactions excluded.

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 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


440.2102 Application of article; security and other transactions excluded.

Sec. 2102.

    Unless the context otherwise requires, this article applies to transactions in goods; it does not apply to any transaction which although in the form of an unconditional contract to sell or present sale is intended to operate only as a security transaction nor does this article impair or repeal any statute regulating sales to consumers, farmers or other specified classes of buyers.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal a Sweebe, Inc., 837 N.W.2d 244 (Mich. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal a Sweebe, Inc., 837 N.W.2d 244 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 8× “2725, provides that “[a]n action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within 4 years after the cause of action has accrued.” . . . . . . “In actions brought to recover the balance due upon a mutual and open account current, the claim accrues at the time of the…”
Neibarger v. Universal Coopertives, Inc., 486 N.W.2d 612 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 6× “MCL 440.2102; MSA 19.2102. *534 In both cases, the Court of Appeals applied the test expressed in Bonebrake v Cox, 499 F2d 951, 960 (CA 8, 1974), to determine whether contracts for mixed goods and services are governed by the code: The test for inclusion or exclusion is not…”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, 644 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 440.2102 (providing generally that the UCC "applies to transactions in goods").”
Heritage Resources, Inc. v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 774 N.W.2d 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “We further hold that plaintiff may not enforce any implied warranties that accompanied the initial sale of the Gencor machine.”
Sherman v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc, 649 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed), p 263, defines “commercial law” as the substantive law dealing with the sale and distribution of goods, the financing of credit transactions on the security of the goods sold, and negotiable instruments. . . . Although the term commercial law is…”
Lorenz Supply Co. v. Am. Stand., Inc., 358 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. 1984). · cites it 2× “We express no opinion on the question whether a distributorship agreement may fall within the broader category of “transactions in goods” within the meaning of § 2-102 of the UCC, MCL 440.2102; MSA 19.2102. See Farnsworth, Contracts, § 8.”
Catalina Mktg. Sales Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, 678 N.W.2d 619 (Mich. 2004). “MCL 440.2102. In contracts involving both goods and services, it must be determined whether the contracts are governed by the ucc.”
Johnson v. QFD, Inc., 807 N.W.2d 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “Plaintiffs also set forth claims (1) alleging that QFD had sold them the mobile home in violation of the MHCA and seeking damages, (2) seeking rescission of their mobile home purchase agreement and restoration of the status quo, (3) seeking revocation of acceptance under Article…”
Grosse Pointe Law Firm, PC v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, 894 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “- MCL 440.2102; Neibarger v Universal Coops, Inc, 439 Mich 512, 519-520 ; 486 NW2d 612 (1992).”
Sullivan Indus., Inc. v. Double Seal Glass Co., 480 N.W.2d 623 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “MCL 440.2102; MSA 19.2102. Goods are defined as "all things, (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale .”
Mallory v. Conida Warehouses, Inc, 350 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Since the sale of the seeds in question was clearly subject to the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.2102, 440.2105(1); MSA 19.2102, 19.”
Latimer v. William Mueller & Son, Inc., 386 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “In Mallory v Conida Warehouses, Inc, supra, p 32, a case also arising out of the sale of bean seeds from lot 112, this Court held that, since the sale of seeds in question was clearly subject to the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.”
Show all 66 citing cases →
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.