Uniform Commercial Code

807 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 268 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Buck v. U.S. Dep't OF Agric.
  960 F.2d 603· 6th Cir.· 1992-04-06
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the dismissal for lack of prosecution, as the attorney's conduct was culpable and the claims lacked merit.
• United States v. One Parcel of Real Est. at 298 N.W. 45th St.
  804 F. Supp. 319· S.D. Fla.· 1992-04-06
  The court held that the claimant lacked standing to contest the forfeiture because she held only bare legal title without dominion and control, and she was not a bona fide purchaser for value due to the 'relation back' doctrine. The motion to admit polygraph evidence was also den
• In re Kitchin Equip. Co. OF Va. v. Neal
  960 F.2d 1242· 4th Cir.· 1992-03-30
  The court held that a check mark in the 'TERMINATION' box on a financing statement form, when accompanied by specific language limiting the release to two items, should be interpreted as a partial release, not a complete termination of the security interest.
• Jeary K. Smith v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp.
  957 F.2d 1439· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-20 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 2
  A limited warranty's failure to serve its essential purpose does not automatically invalidate a distinct exclusion of consequential damages, especially when parties have relatively equal bargaining power and the exclusion is not unconscionable.
• In re Ziluck
  139 B.R. 44· S.D. Fla.· 1992-03-17
  The court held that a signature on a credit card application, below language agreeing to the terms of the accompanying security agreement, is sufficient to satisfy the signature requirement for attachment of a security interest. The court also held that the description of collate
• Harris v. Dial Corp.
  954 F.2d 990· 4th Cir.· 1992-01-24
  The court held that a single contract existed between Dial and Brewster for both bottle manufacturing and resin supply, allowing Dial to offset its accounts receivable.
• Mirax Chem. Prods. Corp. v. First Interstate Commercial Corp.
  950 F.2d 566· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-06
  A loan agreement provision allowing termination at will, even with specified events of default, is not ambiguous and does not preclude the lender from exercising that right. Actions specifically authorized by the agreement cannot constitute a breach of the duty of good faith.
• Bank OF Kan. v. Nelson Music Co., Inc.
  949 F.2d 321· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-13
  The court held that the dragnet clause in the security agreement was not ambiguous and secured all obligations between Nelson and Kingman Bank, including the guaranty.
• In re Bluegrass Ford-Mercury, Inc. v. Farmers Nat'l Bank OF Cynthiana
  942 F.2d 381· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-20 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  The court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the 1977 financing statement did not perfect a security interest in the successor entity's after-acquired inventory, and the SBA loan's security agreement did not extend to the floor plan notes.
• In re Howell Enters., Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank IN Stuttgart
  934 F.2d 969· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-04
  A party's arbitrary bookkeeping entry does not create a legal interest in collateral sufficient to attach a security interest, especially when the debtor never owned the underlying asset.
• Schwegmann Bank & Tr. Co. OF Jefferson v. Elva S. Falkenberg
  931 F.2d 1081· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-28
  The court held that a note with a variable interest rate is a negotiable instrument under Louisiana law and that the bank, as a transferee under the shelter rule, acquired holder in due course status from its transferor, even if the transferor was involved in fraud.
• Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp.
  929 F.2d 1147· 6th Cir.· 1991-04-11
  The court held that the plaintiff, a medical center, was neither a party to nor a third-party beneficiary of the contracts for computer hardware and software, thus lacking standing to sue for breach of contract or warranty.
• A/S Dampskibsselskabet Torm v. Beaumont OIL Ltd.
  927 F.2d 713· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-11
  A secured creditor is not liable for shipping charges merely by exercising dominion and control over collateral, absent acceptance of goods or an agreement to pay.
• Crescent OIL & Shipping Servs., Ltd. v. Phibro Energy, Inc.
  929 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-28
  The court held that the parties' conduct and statements indicated two discharge ports, leading to a more reasonable and equitable interpretation of the contract.
• Venn v. Roberts Supply
  124 B.R. 858· N.D. Fla.· 1991-02-07 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  A financing statement filed solely under a trade name, without the individual debtors' names, is insufficient to perfect a security interest under Florida law.
• United States v. Winter Livestock Comm'n
  924 F.2d 986· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-31
  The court held that Winter Livestock Commission was liable for conversion for selling cattle subject to an FmHA security interest without proper authorization or accounting for proceeds, but remanded for a determination of damages due to a factual dispute over replacement cattle
• Mercantile Bank OF Kan. City v. Farmers & Merchs. State Bank
  920 F.2d 1539· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-10 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 3
  The court held that a 'full recourse' assignment of nonnegotiable documents is a conditional guarantee unless waivers of presentment, dishonor, and notice are present, in which case it is unconditional. Mercantile was required to make collection efforts against the lessees before
• Agra v. Benson
  920 F.2d 1173· 4th Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  A customer who breaches their contract with a broker by failing to meet margin calls cannot recover damages for the broker's commercially unreasonable liquidation if the customer fails to prove that the liquidation caused a greater loss than would have otherwise occurred.
• Barry & Sewall Indus. Supply Co. v. Metal-Prep OF Houston, Inc.
  912 F.2d 252· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-23
  The court held that Barry & Sewall breached the express warranty of line speeds, but reversed damages for increased energy costs and lost profits due to Metal-Prep's failure to mitigate and lack of warranty. The court affirmed damages for edge burners and reversed the award for a
• Bruno v. Fleet Credit Corp.
  564 So. 2d 599· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-07-27
  A party can hold both an ownership interest in leased equipment and a security interest in other collateral to secure lease payments.
• Leasing Serv. Corp. v. Hobbs Equip. Co.
  894 F.2d 1287· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  A financing statement's description of collateral is sufficient if it provides notice to third parties, and a party who pays proceeds based on a mistaken belief of lien priority is entitled to restitution.
• MNC Commercial Corp. v. Joseph T. Ryerson & SON
  882 F.2d 615· 2d Cir.· 1989-07-11 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  A subsequently arising setoff cannot take priority over a perfected security interest in receivables under New York's Uniform Commercial Code Article 9.
• In re Hosier
  875 F.2d 128· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  A parent's judgment for past-due child support is assignable under Illinois common law, even if the children are the ultimate beneficiaries.
• In re Boogie Enters., Inc. v. United States
  866 F.2d 1172· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-01 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  A financing statement describing collateral as 'personal property' is insufficient to perfect a security interest under Cal.Comm.Code § 9402(1).
• Blosam Contractors, Inc. v. Luycx
  535 So. 2d 352· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-12-21 ·via Ucc-1 Financing Statement
  This case concerns the priority between a prior perfected security interest in a partnership interest and a subsequent charging lien on that same interest.
• The First Nat'l Bank OF Amarillo v. Sw. Livestock, Inc.
  859 F.2d 847· 10th Cir.· 1988-10-17
  An auction house acting as an agent is liable for conversion to a secured creditor when it sells collateral without the debtor's authority, even if the security interest is unperfected and the auction house lacked knowledge of the interest.
• Int'l Adhesive Coating Co., Inc. v. Bolton Emerson Int'l, Inc.
  851 F.2d 540· 1st Cir.· 1988-07-18 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 2
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the damages expert's testimony, as it had a sufficient factual basis under Federal Rules of Evidence 703 and 705.
• Brook Mays Music Co. v. Nat'l Cash Register Co.
  838 F.2d 1396· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-08
  The court held that the Universal Agreement's arbitration clause unambiguously applied to the dispute arising from the second computer system sale, and no modification occurred.
• Sec. Title Guar. OF Baltimore v. Breezeview Land Developers, Inc.
  517 So. 2d 108· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-12-29 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  Security Title Guarantee challenged a repossessed automobile sale by a purchase-money mortgagee (Caribank) to Breezeview, arguing it failed to comply with UCC Article 9 notice requirements and constituted a fraudulent redemption rather than a valid sale. The court affirmed the tr
• Butler v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
  829 F.2d 568· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-16 ·via Uniform Commercial Code § 9-503
  A secured creditor does not breach the peace, and therefore does not illegally repossess a vehicle, by making an unauthorized entry onto the debtor's driveway to remove the vehicle.
• Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Solway
  825 F.2d 1213· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-11
  A guarantor is bound by a commercially reasonable disposition standard agreed upon in a related financing agreement, and notice of a private sale sent to the guarantor's last known address is sufficient.
• Freightliner Mkt. Dev. Corp. v. Silver Wheel Freightlines, Inc.
  823 F.2d 362· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  A security interest in a vehicle covered by a certificate of title is perfected exclusively by notation on the certificate, and equitable exceptions are not permitted. A security interest in general intangibles, including operating authorities, is perfected by filing a financing
• Hayes Leasing Sys., Inc. v. The ICE House, Inc.
  506 So. 2d 1073· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-04-10 ·via Ucc-1 Filing
  The court held that there was no sale of equipment from the Ice House to Hayes, and therefore no warranty of title could have been breached.
• In re Celeryvale Transp., Inc. v. M.W. Kellogg Co., Inc.
  822 F.2d 16· 6th Cir.· 1987-02-27 ·via Ucc-1 Filing
  The court held that the equipment lease was a true lease, not a lease intended for security, because the purchase option was for fair market value and not nominal, and the lessee was not obligated to purchase.
• Marlowe v. Argentine Naval Comm'n
  808 F.2d 120· D.C. Cir.· 1986-12-30
  The court held that the defendant did not breach the contract by canceling it, as the plaintiff failed to make timely delivery and cure any defects.
• Gold'n Plump Poultry, Inc. v. Simmons Eng'g Co.
  805 F.2d 1312· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-24
  The court should hold that a seller's express warranty, created by a letter modifying an existing contract, can be enforced by a subsequent purchaser, and that the warranty's specified remedy (a refund) should be applied instead of the standard UCC damages measure.
• Gibbs v. Int'l Multifoods Corp.
  804 F.2d 450· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-29
  The court held that the buyer's actions constituted a retraction of any anticipatory repudiation, and the seller's subsequent inability to perform meant the buyer was not liable for breach of contract.
• Carlson v. Tandy Computer Leasing
  803 F.2d 391· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-10 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  The court held that the agreement was a lease, not a security interest, and that Missouri law governed the substantive issues due to the rights of third-party creditors.
• Gatoil (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
  801 F.2d 451· D.C. Cir.· 1986-09-09
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to WMATA because the record did not conclusively establish that B&A failed to act in good faith in attempting to secure a performance bond under the UCC standard. The court also affirmed the denial of Benso
• Warrington v. Dawson
  798 F.2d 1533· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-09
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority's interpretation of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) regarding notification of assignment is flawed. The dissent asserts that notification is effective when it comes to the account debtor's attention or is duly delivered to their
• Motobecane Am., Ltd. v. Patrick Petroleum Co.
  791 F.2d 1248· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-30
  The court held that the defendants were not obligated to protect the plaintiff's security interest under theories of promissory estoppel or bailment, nor did the plaintiff have an "adverse claim" under the relevant statute.
• In re Shuster v. Doane
  784 F.2d 883· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-03 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  Assignments of a vendor's interest in a contract for deed are interests in real estate, perfected by recording with the county recorder, not by filing a UCC financing statement.
• First City Nat'l Bank OF Midland v. Fed. Deposit Ins. CQRP. for the First Nat'l Bank of Midland
  782 F.2d 1344· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-20
  The court held that the FDIC, as receiver for First National, is liable for conversion of checks with unauthorized endorsements because the bank failed to prove it acted in accordance with reasonable commercial standards. However, Brown is responsible for losses occurring after h
• Coakley & Williams, Inc. v. Shatterproof Glass Corp.
  778 F.2d 196· 4th Cir.· 1985-12-02
  The court held that a contract for the installation of glass curtain walls was predominantly for services, thus the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) and its implied warranties did not apply to the general contractor's claims against the glass supplier.
• United States v. Conrad
  619 F. Supp. 1319· M.D. Fla.· 1985-10-11
  A bidder in a bulk sale at an auction conducted in bulk and then piecemeal is bound by their bid upon the fall of the auctioneer's hammer, even if the piecemeal sales have not yet concluded, provided the sum of the piecemeal bids does not exceed the bulk bid.
• In re Standard Conveyor Co. v. Leonard
  773 F.2d 198· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-12 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  The court held that Berwald's cancellation of the purchase agreement was justified due to unsatisfied financing contingencies, and that accrued rents in the escrow account were not covered by Barclays' security interest.
• Capitol Bank & Tr. OF Chicago v. Fascetta
  771 F.2d 1077· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-29 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  The court held that the land trust arrangement created a personal property security interest, not an equitable mortgage, and thus homestead rights were not preserved under the pre-1982 Illinois statute.
• Crawford v. Gold Kist, Inc.
  614 F. Supp. 682· M.D. Fla.· 1985-06-13
  The court held that the defendant did not breach implied warranties of fitness or merchantability, nor was there negligence or a breach of good faith, because the plaintiff farmer independently researched the seed, purchased it knowing its limitations, and the seed had the potent
• Prewitt v. Numismatic Funding Corp.
  745 F.2d 1175· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-05
  The court held that under a sale on approval, the risk of loss remains with the seller until acceptance, and the buyer's return of goods via mail within the agreed time constitutes seasonable notification.
• Matco Mach. & Tool Co. v. Cincinnati Milacron Co.
  727 F.2d 777· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-09 ·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 2
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the district court's jury instructions, while not perfectly precise in all aspects, did not constitute reversible error, and any unpreserved errors did not rise to the level of plain error.