Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2722 (2026)

Right of action against third party for injury to goods.

✓ 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

440.2722 Right of action against third party for injury to goods.

Sec. 2722.

Where a third party so deals with goods which have been identified to a contract for sale as to cause actionable injury to a party to that contract

(a) a right of action against the third party is in either party to the contract for sale who has title to or a security interest or a special property or an insurable interest in the goods; and if the goods have been destroyed or converted a right of action is also in the party who either bore the risk of loss under the contract for sale or has since the injury assumed that risk as against the other;

(b) if at the time of the injury the party plaintiff did not bear the risk of loss as against the other party to the contract for sale and there is no arrangement between them for disposition of the recovery, his suit or settlement is, subject to his own interest, as a fiduciary for the other party to the contract;

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

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1996–2002 · leading case: Cargill, Inc. v. Boag Cold Storage Warehouse, Inc., 71 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cargill, Inc. v. Boag Cold Storage Warehouse, Inc., 71 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “If we conclude that Michigan courts would recognize such a duty, we must decide whether the plaintiffs claim is barred either by Michigan’s “economic loss doctrine” or by § 2-722 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Mich. Comp. Laws 440.2722). We must further decide whether the…”

GMAC Bus. Credit, L.L.C. v. Ford Motor Co. (In Re H.S.A. II, Inc.), 271 B.R. 534 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2002). · cites it 3× “§ 440.2722. VIII. Ford’s contention that GMAC-BC’s failure to give the required notice before exercising its rights is irrelevant here.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2722(a) — 2 cases

GMAC Bus. Credit, L.L.C. v. Ford Motor Co. (In Re H.S.A. II, Inc.), 271 B.R. 534 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2002). “§ 440.2722. VIII. Ford’s contention that GMAC-BC’s failure to give the required notice before exercising its rights is irrelevant here.”

Cargill, Inc. v. Boag Cold Storage Warehouse, Inc., 71 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 1996). “If we conclude that Michigan courts would recognize such a duty, we must decide whether the plaintiffs claim is barred either by Michigan’s “economic loss doctrine” or by § 2-722 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Mich. Comp. Laws 440.2722). We must further decide whether the…”

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.