(a) Unless the context otherwise requires, and except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, this Article applies to transactions in goods and, in the case of a hybrid transaction, it applies to the extent provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) In a hybrid transaction, both of the following apply:
(1) If the sale-of-goods aspects do not predominate, only the provisions of this Article that relate primarily to the sale-of-goods aspects of the transaction apply, and the provisions that relate primarily to the transaction as a whole do not apply.
(2) If the sale-of-goods aspects predominate, this Article applies to the transaction but does not preclude application in appropriate circumstances of other law to aspects of the transaction that do not relate to the sale of goods.
(c) This Article does not do either of the following:
(1) Apply to a transaction that, even though in the form of an unconditional contract to sell or present sale, operates only to create a security interest.
(2) Impair or repeal a statute regulating sales to consumers, farmers, or other specified classes of buyers. (1965, c. 700, s. 1; 2025-25, s. 113.)
Notes of Decisions
Alberti v. Manufactured Homes, Inc., 407 S.E.2d 819 (N.C. 1991).
· cites it 6× “Brigadier contends that because it never entered into a contractual relationship with plaintiffs, revocation of acceptance is not an available remedy against it.”
North Carolina Nat'l Bank v. Holshouser, 247 S.E.2d 645 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 9× “G.S. § 25-2-102 and the Official Comments thereunder plainly exempt any contract which on its face is in the form of a contract to sell or present sale, if such contract is intended to operate only as a security transaction.”
Kornegay Fam. Farms LLC v. Cross Creek Seed, Inc., 803 S.E.2d 377 (N.C. 2017).
· cites it 8× “See N.C.G.S. §§ 25-2-102, -719. Neither has the General Assembly made any change to the Seed Law that repudiates our understanding in Gore of the Seed Law's underlying policy and purpose.”
Hensley v. Ray's Motor Co. of Forest City, Inc., 580 S.E.2d 721 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, this Court must determine whether the contract is controlled by the UCC as a sale of goods or is governed by the common law of contracts as a service contract.”
Reeder v. Carter, 740 S.E.2d 913 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “2d at 556; see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-102 (2011) (stating that the Uniform Commercial Code only applies to sale of goods).”
D.G. II, LLC v. Nix, 712 S.E.2d 335 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “The contract in the instant case was a contract for the sale of goods, i.”
Lee v. R & K Marine, Inc., 598 S.E.2d 683 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “§ 25-2-725 (2003) states: (1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued. By the original agreement the parties may reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year but may not extend it.”
In Re Surplus Furniture Liquidators, Inc., 199 B.R. 136 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 1995).
· cites it 2× “See N.C.Gen.Stat. § 25-2-102. The question of who holds title to the furniture, and therefore the question of whether title to the furniture is included as property of Debtor’s estate, is controlled by N.”
Lindsay v. Nichino Am., Inc., 202 F. Supp. 3d 524 (M.D.N.C. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-102 . In North Carolina, express warranties are governed by N.”
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.