Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-104 (2026)
Definitions: "merchant"; "financing agency"; "between merchants."
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) "Merchant" means a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to whom such knowledge or skill may be attributed by his employment of an agent or broker or other intermediary who by his occupation holds himself out as having such knowledge or skill.
- (2) "Financing agency" means a bank, finance company or other person who in the ordinary course of business makes advances against goods or documents of title or who by arrangement with either the seller or the buyer intervenes in ordinary course to make or collect payment due or claimed under the contract for sale, as by purchasing or paying the seller's draft or making advances against it or by merely taking it for collection whether or not documents of title accompany or are associated with the draft. "Financing agency" includes also a bank or other person who similarly intervenes between persons that are in the position of seller and buyer in respect to the goods (Section 75-2-707).
- (3) "Between merchants" means in any transaction with respect to which both parties are chargeable with the knowledge or skill of merchants.
Codes, 1942, § 41A:2-104; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 2-104; Laws, 2006, ch. 527, § 43, eff. 7/1/2006.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1978–2016 · leading case: Greenpoint AG, LLC v. Kent (In re Kent), 554 B.R. 131 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2016).
Greenpoint AG, LLC v. Kent (In re Kent), 554 B.R. 131 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2016). “Kent is a merchant as defined in Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-104, according to Greenpoint, because “he is a long time farmer who purchased the product from Greenpoint for a commercial purpose .”
Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Motts, Inc. of Mississippi, 459 F. Supp. 7 (N.D. Miss. 1978). “From the facts as alleged in the pleadings the court finds that for the purpose of considering the motion for summary judgment both parties are “merchants” as that term is defined in Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-104(1) (1972). UCC § 2-201(2) [§ 75-2-201(2)] is only one of several…”
Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Tarmac Roofing Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2002). “Under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-104, the expertise of the roofing firm is imputed to Cooper.”
Lacy v. Morrison, 906 So. 2d 126 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-104(1) (Rev.2002). The lower court correctly determined that Morrison was not a merchant, but it erred in finding that a decisive fact in resolving Lacy's claim because the warranty of fitness, unlike the warranty of merchantability, "does not require a…”
Dawkins & Co. v. L & L PLANTING CO., 602 So. 2d 838 (Miss. 1992). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-104 (1972). In Vince v.”
Davidson v. North Cent. Parts, Inc., 737 So. 2d 1015 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998). “1991) is inapplicable since Davidson is considered a "merchant" under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-104 (Rev.1991). [3] North Central argues that since Davidson is considered a "merchant," the transaction that occurred between the two parties falls under the "merchant's exception" which…”
Yazoo Mfg. Co. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 430 (S.D. Miss. 1997). “” Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-104. In any event, where a contract for the sale of goods has occurred, the seller is under an obligation to transfer and deliver and the buyer is under an obligation to accept and pay in accordance with the terms of the contract.”
McNabb v. L.T. Land & Gravel, LLC, 77 So. 3d 1140 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “” 2 Miss.Code Ann. §§ 75-2-104(1) (Supp.2011), 75-2-814 (Rev.”
Lee v. Sec. Check, LLC, 203 F. Supp. 2d 657 (N.D. Miss. 2000). “” Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-104(2). Based on the above authorities, the court is of the opinion that the uniform commercial statutes permitted Security Check to impose the $30.”
Fid. Fincl Servs Inc v. Carolyn Randolph (Miss. 1994). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-104 defines a "merchant" as follows: "Merchant" means a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to whom such…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-104(1) — 3 cases
Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Motts, Inc. of Mississippi, 459 F. Supp. 7 (N.D. Miss. 1978). “From the facts as alleged in the pleadings the court finds that for the purpose of considering the motion for summary judgment both parties are “merchants” as that term is defined in Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-104(1) (1972). UCC § 2-201(2) [§ 75-2-201(2)] is only one of several…”
Lacy v. Morrison, 906 So. 2d 126 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-104(1) (Rev.2002). The lower court correctly determined that Morrison was not a merchant, but it erred in finding that a decisive fact in resolving Lacy's claim because the warranty of fitness, unlike the warranty of merchantability, "does not require a…”
McNabb v. L.T. Land & Gravel, LLC, 77 So. 3d 1140 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “” 2 Miss.Code Ann. §§ 75-2-104(1) (Supp.2011), 75-2-814 (Rev.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-104(2) — 1 case
Lee v. Sec. Check, LLC, 203 F. Supp. 2d 657 (N.D. Miss. 2000). “” Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-104(2). Based on the above authorities, the court is of the opinion that the uniform commercial statutes permitted Security Check to impose the $30.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-104(3) — 1 case
Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Motts, Inc. of Mississippi, 459 F. Supp. 7 (N.D. Miss. 1978). “From the facts as alleged in the pleadings the court finds that for the purpose of considering the motion for summary judgment both parties are “merchants” as that term is defined in Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-104(1) (1972). UCC § 2-201(2) [§ 75-2-201(2)] is only one of several…”
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.