Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-1-105 (2024)
Severability
✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)
If any provision or clause of the Uniform Commercial Code or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Uniform Commercial Code which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code are severable.
Former § 75-1-105 [Codes, 1942, § 41A:1-105; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 1-105; Laws, 1977, ch. 452, § 1; Laws, 1991, ch. 316, § 1; Laws, 1994, ch. 445, § 2; Laws, 1996, ch. 460, § 19; Laws, 1996, ch. 468, § 53; Laws, 2001, ch. 495, § 4, eff. 1/1/2002; repealed by Laws, 2010, ch. 506, § 44, eff. 7/1/2010] is now found in comparable provisions enacted at § 75-1-301 by Laws, 2010, ch. 506, § 3, eff. 7/1/2010; Present § 75-1-105 is derived from former § 75-1-108 [Codes, 1942, § 41A:1-108; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 1-108, eff. 3/31/1968; repealed by Laws, 2010, ch. 506, § 44, eff. 7/1/2010] and was enacted by Laws, 2010, ch. 506, § 3, eff. 7/1/2010.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 14
cases, 1980–2011 · leading case: Patel v. Telerent Leasing Corp., 574 So. 2d 3 (Miss. 1990).
Patel v. Telerent Leasing Corp., 574 So. 2d 3 (Miss. 1990). “He concluded North Carolina law should apply, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 75-1-105 . He then *6 found that Patel, under the provisions of North Carolina General Statute § 25-2-606, had accepted the television sets by execution of the completion certificate on June 22, 1985,…”
Fmc Fin. Corp. v. Albert D. Murphree, Jr. & Dorothy E. Murphree, 632 F.2d 413 (5th Cir. 1980). “1963); Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-105(1) (1972). See also Dunavent Enterprises, Inc.”
Price v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 651 F. Supp. 706 (S.D. Miss. 1986). “Two questions are before this court on remand: (1) whether application of Mississippi’s unique conflict of laws rule for warranty claims, Miss. Code Ann. § 75-1-105 (Supp.1985), is constitutional, and, if not or if inapplicable, then (2) which state’s laws govern the breach of…”
Tel-Com Mgmt., Inc. v. Waveland Resort Inns, Inc., 782 So. 2d 149 (Miss. 2001). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-105(1) (Supp.2000).”
Superfos Investments Ltd. v. FirstMiss Fertilizer, Inc., 809 F. Supp. 450 (S.D. Miss. 1992). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-105 (1972). 1 See also Woods-Tucker Leasing Corp.”
Apache Prods. Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 154 F.R.D. 650 (S.D. Miss. 1994). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-105(2). There is no doubt that Illinois bears a reasonable relation to the transaction at issue.”
Herring Gas Co., Inc. v. Magee, 813 F. Supp. 1239 (S.D. Miss. 1993). “Mississippi clearly bears a reasonable relation to the termination agreement.”
Marascalco v. Int'l Computerized Orthokeratology Soc'y, Inc., 181 F.R.D. 331 (N.D. Miss. 1998). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-105(1)(1978). Therefore, Mississippi substantive law will apply on privity, disclaimers, and limitations of remedies only when the transaction giving rise to the warranty claim bears some reasonable relation to Mississippi.”
East Mississippi Elec. Power Ass'n v. Porcelain Prods. Co., 757 F. Supp. 748 (S.D. Miss. 1990). “§ 75-2-719(4) (1972), should be held applicable because the sales of the insulators to plaintiffs bear a reasonable relation to Mississippi, see Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-105 (1972) (Mississippi law governs rights and duties of parties regarding disclaimers of implied warranties);…”
Asbury MS Gray-Daniels, L.L.C. v. Daniels, 812 F. Supp. 2d 771 (S.D. Miss. 2011). “at 452-53 (This court, applying Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-105, concluded that a reasonable relation existed where, inter alia, one party negotiated the contract and received payment as directed by the contract at a bank account in the state designated in the choice-of-law provision).”
Woods-Tucker Leasing Corp. v. Hutcheson-Ingram Dev. Co., 642 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1981). “In view of the limited application for rehearing, we will not discuss these contentions in this opinion, al- ■ though we will note briefly why we agree with the bankruptcy and district courts in rejecting them. See notes 5 (parol evidence) and 6 (real nature of the transaction),…”
Price v. Litton Sys. Inc., 784 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1986). “the necessity for privity of contract to maintain a civil action for breach of implied warranties of merchantability or fitness notwithstanding any agreement by the parties that the laws of some other state or nation shall govern the rights and duties of the parties.”
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-1-105(1): 4 cases
Fmc Fin. Corp. v. Albert D. Murphree, Jr. & Dorothy E. Murphree, 632 F.2d 413 (5th Cir. 1980). “1963); Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-105(1) (1972). See also Dunavent Enterprises, Inc.”
Tel-Com Mgmt., Inc. v. Waveland Resort Inns, Inc., 782 So. 2d 149 (Miss. 2001). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-105(1) (Supp.2000).”
Woods-Tucker Leasing Corp. v. Hutcheson-Ingram Dev. Co., 642 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1981). “In view of the limited application for rehearing, we will not discuss these contentions in this opinion, al- ■ though we will note briefly why we agree with the bankruptcy and district courts in rejecting them. See notes 5 (parol evidence) and 6 (real nature of the transaction),…”
Ihp Indus., Inc. v. Permalert, ESP., 947 F. Supp. 257 (S.D. Miss. 1996).
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-1-105(1)(1978): 1 case
Marascalco v. Int'l Computerized Orthokeratology Soc'y, Inc., 181 F.R.D. 331 (N.D. Miss. 1998). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-105(1)(1978). Therefore, Mississippi substantive law will apply on privity, disclaimers, and limitations of remedies only when the transaction giving rise to the warranty claim bears some reasonable relation to Mississippi.”
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-1-105(2): 1 case
Apache Prods. Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 154 F.R.D. 650 (S.D. Miss. 1994). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-1-105(2). There is no doubt that Illinois bears a reasonable relation to the transaction at issue.”
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.