Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2326 (2026)

Transaction as “sale on approval” or “sale or return” if delivered goods returnable by buyer; claims of creditors; effect of “or return” term of contract for sale; work of fine art not subject to claims of art dealer's creditors; “art dealer,”“commission,” and “fine art” defined.

✓ 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


440.2326 Transaction as “sale on approval” or “sale or return” if delivered goods returnable by buyer; claims of creditors; effect of “or return” term of contract for sale; work of fine art not subject to claims of art dealer's creditors; “art dealer,”“commission,” and “fine art” defined.

Sec. 2326.

    (1) Unless otherwise agreed, if delivered goods may be returned by the buyer even though they conform to the contract, the transaction is:

    (a) A "sale on approval" if the goods are delivered primarily for use, and

    (b) A "sale or return" if the goods are delivered primarily for resale.

    (2) Goods held on approval are not subject to the claims of the buyer's creditors until acceptance; goods held on sale or return are subject to such claims while in the buyer's possession.

    (3) Any "or return" term of a contract for sale is to be treated as a separate contract for sale within the statute of frauds section of this article (section 2201) and as contradicting the sale aspect of the contract within the provisions of this article on parol or extrinsic evidence (section 2202).

    (4) Whenever a person delivers or causes to be delivered a work of fine art to an art dealer for the purpose of sale, or exhibition and sale, to the public on a commission, the work of fine art is not subject to the claims of the art dealer's creditors. For the purposes of this subsection, the terms "art dealer", "commission", and "fine art" have the meanings ascribed to them in section 1 of 1979 PA 90, MCL 442.311.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 397, Eff. Mar. 30, 1983 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 348, Eff. July 1, 2001

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1973–1991 · leading case: Robbins v. Comerica Bank-Detroit (In Re Zwagerman), 115 B.R. 540 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1990).
Robbins v. Comerica Bank-Detroit (In Re Zwagerman), 115 B.R. 540 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1990). · cites it 6× “Com-erica claims that the Bradley/Debtor relationship was not a bailment, but rather a consignment subject to Mich.Comp.Laws § 440.2326 (1989) (Mich.Stat.”
Robbins v. Comerica Bank-Detroit (In Re Zwagerman), 125 B.R. 486 (W.D. Mich. 1991). “§ 440.2326(3); M.S.A. § 19.2326(3). Accordingly, Comerica contended that its properly perfected security interest gave it an interest in the proceeds which had priority over Bradley’s interest.”
Nauman v. First Nat'l Bank, 212 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3× “We anticipate no need to consider the provisions of MCLA 440.2326; MSA 19.2326. The controversy arose when the goods were no longer in Grate’s possession.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2326(3) — 2 cases
Robbins v. Comerica Bank-Detroit (In Re Zwagerman), 125 B.R. 486 (W.D. Mich. 1991). “§ 440.2326(3); M.S.A. § 19.2326(3). Accordingly, Comerica contended that its properly perfected security interest gave it an interest in the proceeds which had priority over Bradley’s interest.”
Nauman v. First Nat'l Bank, 212 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “We anticipate no need to consider the provisions of MCLA 440.2326; MSA 19.2326. The controversy arose when the goods were no longer in Grate’s possession.”
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.