Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-1-101 (2026)
Short title
✓ current as of July 2026
- (a) Chapters 1 through 10 of Title 75 shall be known and may be cited as the Uniform Commercial Code.
- (b) This chapter may be cited as Article 1 when referring to the general provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code or as Uniform Commercial Code - General Provisions.
- (c) Chapters 1 through 10 of Title 75 are numbered to correspond to the numbering of the articles of the Uniform Commercial Code and may be referred to as "Articles."
Derived from former § 75-1-101 [Codes, 1942, § 41A:1-101; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 1-101, eff March 31, 1968; Repealed by Laws, 2010, ch. 506, § 44, eff from and after July 1, 2010] and was enacted by Laws, 2010, ch. 506, § 3, eff from and after July 1, 2010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case: Midwest Feeders, Inc. v. Bank of Franklin, 886 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2018).
Midwest Feeders, Inc. v. Bank of Franklin, 886 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2018). “§ 75-3-102 (a) ("This chapter applies to negotiable instruments.”
Rogers-Dabbs Chevrolet-Hummer v. Blakeney, 950 So. 2d 170 (Miss. 2007). “On the other hand, Blakeney asserts that, pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (Miss.Code Ann. §§ 75-1-101 et seq. (Rev.2002)), he revoked acceptance of the Hummer due to nonconformity which substantially impaired the value of the vehicle; that he did not…”
White v. Hancock Bank, 477 So. 2d 265 (Miss. 1985). “The adjudication of the issues discussed in this Part V is the function of the Uniform Commercial Code as enacted at the legislature in this state, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-1-101 , et seq. (1972), coupled with and supplemented only by such common law rules as may be allowed in…”
Murray v. Payne, 437 So. 2d 47 (Miss. 1983). “Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-1-101 , et seq. (Supp.”
Smith v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 791 F. Supp. 1137 (S.D. Miss. 1990). “§ 11-7-18 3 and the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC], Miss.Code Ann. §§ 75-1-101, et seq., which forbids the limitations of implied warranties and limitations of the remedies for the breach of the implied warranties by the seller of goods or services.”
Piney Woods Country Life Sch. v. Shell Oil Co., 539 F. Supp. 957 (S.D. Miss. 1982). “31, 1968) provided that if the contract for sale allowed the buyer an opportunity to inspect and reject the goods once delivered, then title did not pass until the buyer had a reasonable opportunity to inspect.”
Leonora Murray v. Gen. Motors, L.L.C., e, 478 F. App'x 175 (5th Cir. 2012). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-101 et seq. (1972).”
The S. Cotton Oil Co., Inc. v. Merchants Nat'l Bank, 670 F.2d 548 (5th Cir. 1982). “) has been adopted in Mississippi, Miss.Code § 75-1-101 et seq. (1972).”
Crosby v. Peoples Bank of Indianola, 472 So. 2d 951 (Miss. 1985). “The adjudication of this case is the function of Code, in this instance the Uniform Commercial Code, as enacted by the legislature in this state, Miss.Code Ann. §§ 75-1-101, et seq., coupled and supplemented by our law regarding separation agreements incident to divorce…”
Erin Burns & Shaun Burns, Co-Executors of The Est. of Katheryn Suzanne Burns, & Erin Burns, Individually v. BancorpSouth Bank & Trustmark Corp. (Miss. Ct. App. 2023). “3 Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-1-101 to 75-11-108 (Rev.”
Rogers-Dabbs Chevrolet-Hummer, Inc. v. Keith Blakeney (Miss. 2004). “On the other hand, Blakeney asserts that, pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code ( Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-1-101 et seq. (Rev.”
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.