Okla. Stat. » Title 12A — UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 1-102 (2026)

Scope of article

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Scope of Article. This article applies to a transaction to the extent that it is governed by another article of the Uniform Commercial Code. Added by Laws 1961, p. 69, § 1-102. Amended by Laws 2005, c. 139, § 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Hardesty v. Andro Corp.-Webster Div., 555 P.2d 1030 (Okla. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hardesty v. Andro Corp.-Webster Div., 555 P.2d 1030 (Okla. 1976). “2d 622 (1974) saying: “The UCC has to do with commercial transactions (12A O.S.1971, § 1-102) and presupposes a buyer in privity with a seller, the concept being extended only as provided by the Legislature.”
Goss v. Trinity Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 813 P.2d 492 (Okla. 1991). “” Support for this is found in section 12A O.S.1981, § 1-102 which provides in part that: (1) This act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies.”
Sesow v. Swearingen, 552 P.2d 705 (Okla. 1976). “…limiting the time for commencing contractual actions. 9 . 12A O.S.1971 § 2-106(1). 10 . 12A O.S.1971 § 2-102. 11 . 12A O.S.1971 § 1-102(2) (a).”
Russell v. Assocs. Fin. Servs. Co. (In Re Russell), 29 B.R. 270 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1983). “12A O.S.1981 § 1-102(2), namely: (a) to simplify, clarify and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (b) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage and agreement of the parties; This Court does not read the Code Comment as…”
Moss v. Polyco, Inc., 522 P.2d 622 (Okla. 1974). “, § 163, supra, that the court has discretion to extend warranty protection beyond such categories of persons named by the Legislature so as to include bystanders, persuasive here. We believe that the statutory implied warranty sections of the UCC are not applicable in this case.”
Nat'l Livestock Credit Corp. v. Schultz, 653 P.2d 1243 (Okla. Civ. App. 1982). “” 12A O.S.1981 § 1-102(1) & (2)(b) (emphasis added).”
In Re Edwards Equip. Co., 46 B.R. 689 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1985). “” 12A O.S. 1981 § 1-102(1). The underlying purposes and policies are “to simplify, clarify and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage and agreement of the parties; to make uniform the…”
Reynolds-Wilson Lumber Co. v. Peoples Nat'l Bank, 699 P.2d 146 (Okla. 1985). “12A O.S.1981 § 1-102(2)(c). As previously noted, the trial court concluded without citation of decisional authority that the draft here in issue was payable “through or at” PNB, but was not drawn on PNB, with the result that PNB was a collecting bank but not a payor bank.”
In Re Hembree, 635 P.2d 601 (Okla. 1981). “"(2) Underlying purposes and policies of this Act are (a) to simplify, clarify and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (b) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage and agreement of the parties.”
Roye Realty & Developing, Inc. v. Arkla, Inc., 863 P.2d 1150 (Okla. 1993). · cites it 2× “Additionally, 12A O.S.1981, § 1-102(3) provides that the “effect of provisions of this Act may be varied by agreement, except as otherwise provided in this Act.”
Peoples Nat'l Bank v. Uhlenhake, 712 P.2d 75 (Okla. Civ. App. 1985). “As stated in 12A O.S.1981 § 1-102, the Code is to be applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies.”
In Re Boyd, 658 P.2d 470 (Okla. 1983). “It seems to us antithetical to the purpose of the UCC to deny priority to a creditor who secured the agreement of *473 the debtor to insure against involuntary loss of the collateral.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 1-102(1) — 10 cases
Nat'l Livestock Credit Corp. v. Schultz, 653 P.2d 1243 (Okla. Civ. App. 1982). “” 12A O.S.1981 § 1-102(1) & (2)(b) (emphasis added).”
In Re Edwards Equip. Co., 46 B.R. 689 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1985). “” 12A O.S. 1981 § 1-102(1). The underlying purposes and policies are “to simplify, clarify and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage and agreement of the parties; to make uniform the…”
In Re Hembree, 635 P.2d 601 (Okla. 1981). “"(2) Underlying purposes and policies of this Act are (a) to simplify, clarify and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (b) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage and agreement of the parties.”
In Re Boyd, 658 P.2d 470 (Okla. 1983). “It seems to us antithetical to the purpose of the UCC to deny priority to a creditor who secured the agreement of *473 the debtor to insure against involuntary loss of the collateral.”
In Re Suddarth, 222 B.R. 352 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 1998).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 1-102(2) — 4 cases
Sesow v. Swearingen, 552 P.2d 705 (Okla. 1976). “…limiting the time for commencing contractual actions. 9 . 12A O.S.1971 § 2-106(1). 10 . 12A O.S.1971 § 2-102. 11 . 12A O.S.1971 § 1-102(2) (a).”
Russell v. Assocs. Fin. Servs. Co. (In Re Russell), 29 B.R. 270 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1983). “12A O.S.1981 § 1-102(2), namely: (a) to simplify, clarify and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (b) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage and agreement of the parties; This Court does not read the Code Comment as…”
In Re Suddarth, 222 B.R. 352 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 1998).
Malloy v. Arcadia Fin. Ltd. (In Re Suddarth), 232 B.R. 789 (N.D. Okla. 1999).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 1-102(2)(c) — 1 case
Reynolds-Wilson Lumber Co. v. Peoples Nat'l Bank, 699 P.2d 146 (Okla. 1985). “12A O.S.1981 § 1-102(2)(c). As previously noted, the trial court concluded without citation of decisional authority that the draft here in issue was payable “through or at” PNB, but was not drawn on PNB, with the result that PNB was a collecting bank but not a payor bank.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 1-102(3) — 1 case
Roye Realty & Developing, Inc. v. Arkla, Inc., 863 P.2d 1150 (Okla. 1993). “Additionally, 12A O.S.1981, § 1-102(3) provides that the “effect of provisions of this Act may be varied by agreement, except as otherwise provided in this Act.”
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.