Examples of Kansas UCC in a sentence
Here, SLT has addressed the parol evidence rule under Kansas common law, not the Kansas UCC, and therefore in failing to move for summary judgment under the correct legal standard SLT has not met its initial summary judgment burden on this issue.
This case, however, involves the sale of goods and therefore the applicable parol evidence rule is set forth in the Kansas Uniform Commercial Code (the Kansas UCC), K.S.A. § 84-2-202.
Hernandez-Simpson, 369 B.R. at 45 (applying Kansas UCC and holding that negative equity financing is not secured by a purchase-money lien in vehicle); In re Erickson, 2006 WL 4846379 (Bankr.
The Kansas UCC statute of frauds states as follows:Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker.
Cox argues that differences between the Oklahoma UCC at issue in Marcus and the Kansas UCC applicable here means the law governing Cox’s conduct was not clearly established.
Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, Judge James did not accept Mr.Underwood’s testimony that defendant’s sale of Infinity stock on the OTCQB was sold in a recognized market as the Kansas UCC defines that term.
Applying the principle of nemo dat as expressed in § 84-9-318 and elsewhere in the Kansas U.C.C., Commerce, as Bierwirth’s assignee, took its right to receive the funds subject to the right of Chrysler Corporation, the account debtor, to pay them to Chrysler Realty.
App.2d 296, 300, 605 P.2d 587, 591 (1980) (principal liable for all acts of agent within apparent scope of authority conferred on it); see also K.S.A. § 84-1-103 (Kansas UCC expressly preserves, among other areas, general common law principles of the law of principal-agent).
Under the Kansas UCC, a buyer may recover as damages for any nonconformity of tender the loss resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller’s breach as determined in any manner which is reasonable.
Again, SLT has cited case law involving Kansas common law principles whereas, here, whether and the extent to which ARI's alleged repudiation might excuse SLT's performance is governed by the Kansas UCC and case law involving the relevant statutory provisions under the Kansas UCC.