Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-101 (2026)
Short title
✓ current as of July 2026
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code-Sales.
Codes, 1942, § 41A:2-101; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 2-101, eff. 3/31/1968.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1982–2002 · leading case: JL Teel Co., Inc. v. Houston United Sales, 491 So. 2d 851 (Miss. 1986).
JL Teel Co., Inc. v. Houston United Sales, 491 So. 2d 851 (Miss. 1986). “At its foundation this case presents the question whether, if at all, the provisions of the Sales Article of the Uniform Commercial Code, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-2-101 , et seq. (Supp.”
Howard v. CitiFinancial, Inc., 195 F. Supp. 2d 811 (S.D. Miss. 2002). “, the transaction is governed by the UCC as adopted in Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-2-101 to—725”). Goods are defined by the UCC as “all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale.”
Piney Woods Country Life Sch. v. Shell Oil Co., 539 F. Supp. 957 (S.D. Miss. 1982). “§§ 75-1-101 — 11-108 (1972), particularly Miss.Code Ann. §§ 75-2-101 — 725 (1972). 43 .”
JO Hooker & Sons v. Roberts Cabinet, 683 So. 2d 396 (Miss. 1996). “Hooker asserts that the contract in question should be interpreted in the context of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-101 et seq., given that the transaction involved was for the sale of goods, namely cabinets.”
Briscoe's Foodland v. Capital Assocs., 502 So. 2d 619 (Miss. 1986). “§ 75-2-401 (1972) and § 75-9-202 (1972), the Official Comment to Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-101 (1972) significantly states: The arrangement of the present Article [the Sales Article] is in terms of contract for sale and the various steps of its performance.”
Huff v. Hobgood, 549 So. 2d 951 (Miss. 1989). “as adopted in Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-2-101 to -725 (1972 & Supp.”
Yazoo Mfg. Co. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 430 (S.D. Miss. 1997). “Is Defendant Liable Under The Terms Of The October 17, 1994, Letter Since this dispute is based upon the sale of goods, specifically lawn mowers, Chapter Two of the Mississippi Uniform Commercial Code, Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-101, et seq., 204 (1972) (hereinafter “UCC”), governs…”
David Nutt & Assoc. v. First Cont. Leasing Corp., 599 So. 2d 576 (Miss. 1992). “In his Answer, Nutt asserted as an affirmative defense that the lease was the functional equivalent of a sale and thus governed by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, codified at Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-101 , et seq. Further, he counterclaimed that First Continental had…”
J O Hooker & Sons Inc v. Roberts Cabinet Co Inc (Miss. 1992). “Hooker asserts that the contract in question should be interpreted in the context of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, Miss. Code Ann. §75-2-101 et seq., given that the transaction involved was for the sale of goods, namely cabinets.”
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.