Uniform Commercial Code
Additionally, some jurisdictions deviate from the official UCC by tailoring the language to meet their unique needs and preferences.
[1] NCCUSL and ALI began drafting the first version of the UCC in 1945, following earlier, less comprehensive codification efforts for areas including the sale of goods across state lines.
[2] Judge Herbert F. Goodrich was the chairman of the editorial board of the original 1952 edition,[3] and the Code itself was drafted by legal scholars including Karl N. Llewellyn (the prime leader in the project),[4] William A. Schnader, Soia Mentschikoff, and Grant Gilmore.
The UCC contained principles and concepts borrowed from German law, although they were unacknowledged by Llewellyn.
Unless such changes are minor, they can seriously obstruct the Code's express objective of promoting uniformity of law among the various states.
Although these commentaries do not have the force of law, courts interpreting the Code often cite them as persuasive authority in determining the effect of one or more provisions.
Louisiana and Puerto Rico have enacted most of the provisions of the UCC with only minimal changes, except Articles 2 and 2A, preferring instead to maintain their own civil law tradition for governing the sale and lease of goods.
[9] Although the substantive content is largely similar, some states have made structural modifications to conform to local customs.
[10] In 1989, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws recommended that Article 6 of the UCC, dealing with bulk sales, be repealed as obsolete.
[citation needed] A major revision of Article 9, dealing primarily with transactions in which personal property is used as security for a loan or extension of credit, was enacted in all states.
[citation needed] The controversy surrounding with what is now termed the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) originated in the process of revising Article 2 of the UCC.
The law frequently distinguishes between merchants, who customarily deal in a commodity and are presumed to know well the business they are in, and consumers, who are not.
Neither DTC nor the Federal Reserve hold an individual register of the transfers of property reflecting beneficial owners.
As a consequence, it also prevents the investor from asserting its securities at the upper level of the holding chain, either up to DTC or up to a sub-custodian.
Security interests in real property include mortgages, deeds of trusts, and installment land contracts.
[24] The obligee which is the debtor shall return all assets stated in the collateral to secured party after the perfection of default by secured party in response to protest by the Obligee within specified time frame in the civil code and UCC Article 9-3.
The Model Tribal Secured Transactions Act (MTSTA) is a model act written by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) and tailored to provide Native American tribes with a legal system to govern secured transactions in Indian country.
Article 2 had some influence on the drafting of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), though the result departed from the UCC in many respects (such as refusing to adopt the mailbox rule).
[citation needed][25] Article 5, governing letters of credit, has been influential in international trade finance simply because so many major financial institutions operate in New York.
[citation needed] Article 9, which established a unified framework for security interests in personal property, directly inspired the enactment of Personal Property Security Acts in every Canadian province and territory except Quebec from 1990 onwards.
