Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-1-301
Territorial applicability - Parties' power to choose applicable law
- (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, when a transaction bears a reasonable relation to this state and also to another state or nation the parties may agree that the law either of this state or of such other state or nation shall govern their rights and duties.
- (b) In the absence of an agreement effective under subsection (a), and except as provided in subsection (c), chapters 1-9 of this title apply to transactions bearing an appropriate relation to this state.
- (c) If one (1) of the following provisions of chapters 1-9 of this title specifies the applicable law, that provision governs and a contrary agreement is effective only to the extent permitted by the law so specified:
- (1) Section 47-2-402;
- (2) Sections 47-2A-105 and 47-2A-106;
- (3) Section 47-4-102;
- (4) Section 47-4A-507;
- (5) Section 47-5-116;
- (6) Section 47-8-110; or
- (7) Sections 47-9-301 - 47-9-307.
Acts 2008, ch. 930, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 2011–2020 · leading case: Carbon Processing & Reclamation, LLC v. Valero Marketing & Supply Co.
Carbon Processing & Reclamation, LLC v. Valero Marketing & Supply Co. (2011)
“Therefore, for purposes of this Motion, the Court finds good cause to apply the substantive law of Tennessee pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-1-301. B. The Parties’ Arguments Valero seeks summary judgment on CPR’s breach of contract claim.”
Orlowski v. Bates (2015)
“” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-1-301 . “In the absence of such an agreement, Tennessee’s UCC applies ‘to transactions bearing an appropriate relation to’ the state of Tennessee.”
Fishback Nursery, Inc. v. PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n (2019)
“4; Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-1-301 (c)(7) & cmt. 4.”
W. Silver Recycling, Inc. v. Protrade Steel Company, LTD. (2020)
“” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-1-301 cmt. 1. 8 To the extent that Ohio case law interpreting the applicable UCC provisions would favor a party in this case to a greater extent than would Tennessee case law, the party can hardly object, having assented to the application of Tennessee…”
Russell Barnett Ford of Tullahoma, Inc. v. H&S Bakery, Inc. (2019)
“§ 47-1-301 (b)). 8 1. The Contracts Were the Bills of Sale In Tennessee, whether a contract is express or implied, written or oral, “an enforceable contract must result from a meeting of the minds in mutual assent to terms, must be based upon sufficient consideration, must be…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-1-301(a) — 1 case
Carbon Processing & Reclamation, LLC v. Valero Marketing & Supply Co. (2011)
“Therefore, for purposes of this Motion, the Court finds good cause to apply the substantive law of Tennessee pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-1-301. B. The Parties’ Arguments Valero seeks summary judgment on CPR’s breach of contract claim.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-1-301(b) — 1 case
Carbon Processing & Reclamation, LLC v. Valero Marketing & Supply Co. (2011)
“Therefore, for purposes of this Motion, the Court finds good cause to apply the substantive law of Tennessee pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-1-301. B. The Parties’ Arguments Valero seeks summary judgment on CPR’s breach of contract claim.”
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.