This article shall be known and may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code - Sales.
History: 1953 Comp., § 50A-2-101, enacted by Laws 1961, ch. 96, § 2-101.
OFFICIAL COMMENTS
UCC Official Comments © by ALI & the NCCUSL. Reproduced with permission of the
PEB for the UCC. All rights reserved.
This article is a complete revision and modernization of the Uniform Sales Act which
was promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
in 1906 and has been adopted in 34 states and Alaska, the District of Columbia and
Hawaii.
The coverage of the present article is much more extensive than that of the old Sales
Act and extends to the various bodies of case law which have been developed both
outside of and under the latter.
The arrangement of the present article is in terms of contract for sale and the various
steps of its performance. The legal consequences are stated as following directly from
the contract and action taken under it without resorting to the idea of when property or
title passed or was to pass as being the determining factor. The purpose is to avoid
making practical issues between practical men turn upon the location of an intangible
something, the passing of which no man can prove by evidence and to substitute for
such abstractions proof of words and actions of a tangible character.
ANNOTATIONS
Law reviews. — For article, "Lender Recourse in Indian Country: A Navajo Case
Study," see 21 N.M.L. Rev. 275 (1991).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 64 Am. Jur. 2d Public Works and
Contracts § 18; 67 Am. Jur. 2d Sales § 1 et seq.
Applicability of U.C.C. Article 2 to mixed contracts for sale of goods and services, 5
A.L.R.4th 501.
82 C.J.S. Statutes § 221.
Notes of Decisions
Laurich v. Red Lobster Rests., LLC, 295 F. Supp. 3d 1186 (D.N.M. 2017).
· cites it 2× “This provision relates to the sale of goods pursuant to New Mexico's Uniform Commercial Code, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 55-2-101 et seq., i.e. , not to Arbitration Agreements like the one at issue here.”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Anaya, 703 P.2d 169 (N.M. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The Anayas correctly argue that under the current version of the Uniform Commercial Code, NMSA 1978, §§ 55-2-101 to -725 (Sales), “the buyer is no longer required to elect between revocation of acceptance and recovery of damages for breach.”
Credit Inst. v. Veterinary Nutrition Corp., 62 P.3d 339 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “{1} In this appeal, we address whether the trial court may sua sponte award equitable relief to a party on the basis of unjust enrichment in an action based solely on express contract under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, NMSA 1978, §§ 55-2-101 to - 725 (1961, as…”
Dell Catalog Sales L.P. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 199 P.3d 863 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 3× “{34} We are equally unpersuaded by Taxpayer’s reliance on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) for its contention that a sale is determined when title transfers. Taxpayer points to the UCC’s official commentary, which notes that “transfer of title” and “transfer of property” are…”
Kirkpatrick v. Introspect Healthcare Corp., 845 P.2d 800 (N.M. 1992).
· cites it 2× “The linchpin of Introspect’s argument is that all facts alleged by Kirkpatrick, taken as true, fail to state an actionable claim for breach of contract because the contract between the parties fails to state a quantity term as required by the UCC’s Statute of Frauds.”
First Nat. Bank in Albuquerque v. Chase, 887 P.2d 1250 (N.M. 1994).
· cites it 4× “DISCUSSION The issue on appeal is whether the statute of limitations for First National's deficiency action is governed by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, NMSA 1978, §§ 55-2-101 to 55-2-725 (Repl.”
Stewart v. Lucero, 918 P.2d 1 (N.M. 1996).
· cites it 2× “S'ee NMSA 1978, §§ 55-2-101 to -725 (Repl. Pamp.”
Kirk Co. v. Ashcraft, 684 P.2d 1127 (N.M. 1984).
“1980), and Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, NMSA 1978, Sections 55-2-101 to -725 (Orig.Pamp. and Cum.”
Int'l Paper Co. v. Farrar, 700 P.2d 642 (N.M. 1985).
“This case considers the use of the doctrine of collateral estoppel and presents ■ several questions under Article Two of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), NMSA 1978, Sections 55-2-101 to 55-2-725 (Cum. Supp.”
Citizens Bank v. Runyan, 789 P.2d 620 (N.M. 1990).
“DISCUSSION OF LEGAL ISSUES We agree with CBC that resolution of the issues raised by the parties depends on application of the Uniform Commercial Code to the facts of the case, or more particularly, on the application of Article Two, NMSA 1978, Sections 55-2-101 to -2-725…”
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.