Miss. Code Ann. » Miss. Code Ann. / Title 75 / Chapter 2
Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-103 (2026)

Definitions and index of definitions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Codes, 1942, § 41A:2-103; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 2-103; Laws, 2001, ch. 495, § 6; Laws, 2006, ch. 527, § 42; Laws, 2010, ch. 506, § 4, eff. 7/1/2010.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1982–2017 · leading case: Henderson v. Chrysler Corp., 477 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Henderson v. Chrysler Corp., 477 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “in Volkswagen of America, Inc v Novak, 418 So 2d 801, 804 (Miss, 1982), to reject the manufacturer's claim that it *345 was not liable in an action for revocation of acceptance: VWoA argues however that they were not a party to the sales contract, therefore, revocation of…”
Hargett v. Midas Intern. Corp., 508 So. 2d 663 (Miss. 1987). · cites it 3× “Midas, in turn, filed a motion for summary judgment contending it was not a "seller" as defined in Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-103 (1972), and was therefore not liable for a breach of an implied warranty of merchantability.”
Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Tarmac Roofing Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2002). “§ 75-9-109; see Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-103(3) applying Miss.”
Fedders Corp. v. Boatright, 493 So. 2d 301 (Miss. 1986). “" We held that under the facts of that case the manufacturer, as well as the dealer, was a "seller" under Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-103 (1)(d) (1972) because the sale and warranty "blended into a single unit" at the time of sale, and because such sales are usually made, "not only…”
Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Novak, 418 So. 2d 801 (Miss. 1982). “VWoA argues however that they were not a party to the sales contract, therefore, revocation of acceptance and return of the purchase price is not available because they are not "sellers" as defined by Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-103 (1)(d) (1972).”
Royal Lincoln-Mercury Sales v. Wallace, 415 So. 2d 1024 (Miss. 1982). “Ford contends that Wallace cannot recover the purchase price from it because Ford did not sell the vehicle to him, relying upon Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-103 (1)(d), wherein a seller is defined as, "a person who sells or contracts to sell goods.”
Scordino v. Hopeman Bros., Inc., 662 So. 2d 640 (Miss. 1995). “1982), citing Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-103 (1)(d) (1972); 67 Am.”
Harmon v. Nat'l Auto. Parts Assn., 720 F. Supp. 79 (N.D. Miss. 1989). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-103 (l)(d) (1972).”
Steel Dynamics Columbus, LLC v. Altech Env't USA Corp., 273 F. Supp. 3d 627 (N.D. Miss. 2017). “” Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-2-103 , 75-2-719(4) (2010).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-103(3) — 1 case
Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Tarmac Roofing Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2002). “§ 75-9-109; see Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-103(3) applying Miss.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-103(l)(d) — 1 case
Henderson v. Chrysler Corp., 477 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “in Volkswagen of America, Inc v Novak, 418 So 2d 801, 804 (Miss, 1982), to reject the manufacturer's claim that it *345 was not liable in an action for revocation of acceptance: VWoA argues however that they were not a party to the sales contract, therefore, revocation of…”
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.