Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-1-103 (2026)
Construction of Uniform Commercial Code to promote its purposes and policies; applicability of supplemental principles of law
✓ current as of July 2026
- (a) The Uniform Commercial Code must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are:
- (1) To simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions;
- (2) To permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and
- (3) To make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.
- (b) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions.
Present § 75-1-103 is derived from former §§ 75-1-102(1), (2) [Codes, 1942, § 41A:1-102; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 1-102, eff. 3/31/1968; repealed by Laws, 2010, ch. 506, § 44, eff. 7/1/2010] and 75-1-103 [Codes, 1942, § 41A:1-103; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 1-103, eff. 3/31/1968; repealed by Laws, 2010, ch. 506, § 44, eff. 7/1/2010], and was enacted by Laws, 2010, ch. 506, § 3, eff. 7/1/2010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: Delta Chem. & Petroleum, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Byhalia, 790 So. 2d 862 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
Delta Chem. & Petroleum, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Byhalia, 790 So. 2d 862 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-103. ¶ 27. A determination of Sands's capacity as an authorized agent of the two corporations to effectuate endorsements of the rebate checks belonging to Delta, Inc.”
Marilyn Newsome v. Peoples Bank, 269 So. 3d 19 (Miss. 2018). “The UCC provides the following: "Unless displaced by the particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation,…”
Turner v. Terry, 799 So. 2d 25 (Miss. 2001). “Further, Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-103 (1972) explicitly provides that the common law principles of fraud and misrepresentation should supplement the commercial code provisions.”
White v. Hancock Bank, 477 So. 2d 265 (Miss. 1985). “White recognizes that the Uniform Commercial Code as enacted into law in this state has much to say about his relationship with the Hancock Bank.”
Hancock Bank v. Ensenat, 819 So. 2d 3 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-103 (Supp.2001). ¶ 23.”
Gibson v. Manuel, 534 So. 2d 199 (Miss. 1988). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 75-1-103 (1972), Beck Enterprises, Inc.”
H & W Indus., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA & Formosa Plastics Corp., Texas & J-M Mfg. Co., 860 F.2d 172 (5th Cir. 1988). “” Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-103 (1972) (emphasis added).”
Choice Escrow & Land Title, LLC v. BancorpSouth Bank, 754 F.3d 611 (8th Cir. 2014). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-103. But Article 4A preempts common law causes of action “in two specific areas: (1) where the common law claims would create rights, duties, or liability inconsistent with [Article 4A]; and (2) where the circumstances giving rise to the common law claims…”
Patel v. Telerent Leasing Corp., 574 So. 2d 3 (Miss. 1990). “Nickles, Common Law and Equity Under the Uniform Commercial Code, § 8-25 (1985).”
Beck Enter., Inc. v. Hester, 512 So. 2d 672 (Miss. 1987). “[2] The Court notes that among the general principles stated in the code is Miss. Code Ann. § 75-1-103 (1972) providing that common law principles of *675 fraud and misrepresentation supplement the code provisions as follows: Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this…”
Bay Springs Forest Prods., Inc. v. Wade, 435 So. 2d 690 (Miss. 1983). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-1-103 (Supp. 1982). Section 75-2-403 is a "particular provision" of the Mississippi UCC which "displaces" (although it does not change) the common law respecting the power of persons such as Grissom and Gregory to transfer title.”
JL Teel Co., Inc. v. Houston United Sales, 491 So. 2d 851 (Miss. 1986). “Finding nothing in Article 2 guiding us by analogy toward articulation of the measure of Teel's recovery for Houston's continued use of the copier, we turn to Miss. Code Ann. § 75-1-103 (1972), which provides: Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this Code, 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.