Talk:Uniform Commercial Code

The article on contract of sale

The article on contract of sale says that UCC (article 2) has been adopted in Canada excluding Quebec. Can anyone verify? Ellsworth 14:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Origin

Could someone who is knowledgeable about these things add to the article when the UCC was created? I can't even tell if it is from the 19th or 20th centuries, let alone the exact year. Unschool 07:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to ali's page. In their catalog, there is a description of the editors, etc of each version of the code, and they mention the original version there. Also, I mentioned the revision to Art 9 in 2001, with a cite.--Zilonis 07:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

When the code started

I was just looking at World Book Online, and their article says that the original code was released in 1952. Work began in the 1940's. Hope this is what you're looking for. I've never used Wikipedia before.

Table

I added a wikitable for each UCC Article, but it needs to be linked better with wikipedia's articles on each UCC Article. Also, I left off the last Articles regarding effective dates, etc. Have at it. Jasoncpetty 14:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

October 2006

The claim that "The overriding philosophy of the Uniform Commercial Code is to allow people to make the contracts they want, but to fill in any missing provisions where the agreements they make are silent" is highly contested in the legal literature. Presumably the author of this entry adheres to the interpretation of the UCC promulgated by the "law and economics" school (see Easterbrook and Fischel 1991). While that view has gained considerable currency in both legal scholarship and the courts over the last 10-15 years, it has not been the dominant interpretation of the UCC by the courts since passage of the UCC. For a brief overview of the issues, see Michael P. Van Alstine. "Of Textualism, Party Autonomy, and Good Faith." William and Mary Law Review, vol. 40, 1999. (No, I am not the author of the piece.) While the issues may seem arcane to non-lawyers, they have important consequences for how the UCC is interpreted and implemented by the courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.203.217 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

March 2007

The uniform law movement began in the latter half of the 19th century. The Alabama State Bar Association recognized as early as 1881 the legal tangles created by wide variations in state laws. But it was not until 1889 that the American Bar Association decided, at its 12th Annual Meeting, to work for “uniformity of the laws” in the then 44 states.

Within a year, the New York Legislature authorized the governor to appoint three commissioners to explore the best way to effect uniformity of law between increasingly inter-dependent states. The ABA endorsed New York’s action. The result was the first meeting of the Conference of State Boards of Commissioners on Promoting Uniformity of Law in the U.S.

Seven states sent commissioners to that first meeting of the Conference in Saratoga Springs, New York, in 1892. By 1912, every state had appointed uniform law commissioners. The U.S. Virgin Islands is the last jurisdiction to join, appointing its first commission in 1988.

Since its organization, the Conference has drafted more than 200 uniform laws on numerous subjects and in various fields of law, setting patterns for uniformity across the nation. Uniform acts include the Uniform Probate Code, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, the Uniform Partnership Act, the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, the Uniform Limited Partnership Act, and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.

Most significant was the 1940 Conference decision to attack major commercial problems with comprehensive legal solutions—a decision that set in motion the project to produce the Uniform Commercial Code in partnership with the American Law Institute. The Code took ten years to complete and another 14 years before it was enacted across the country. It remains the signature product of the Conference.

Today the Conference is recognized primarily for its work in commercial law, family law, the law of probate and estates, the law of business organizations, health law, and conflicts of law. It rarely drafts law that is regulatory in nature.

The UCC code is only applicable within the United States of America and is not enforceable outside if these boundaries although some countries have mistakenly adopted it at the commercial level. Otherwise all other countries use INCOTERMS 2000 as it is more definitive with respect to onwership of goods and legal and insurable responsibilities.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.20.46 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

I contend that this article should mention the ...ah... interesting theories some sections of the U.S. far right have about the UCC, so I added the following:

The Uniform Commercial Code plays an significant part in the legal theories of far right groups such as Christian Patriots and Posse Comitatus. The "redemption movement" even claims that the Uniform Commercial Code is now "actually the supreme law of the land".[1]

(The Christian Patriots and Posse Comitatus (U.S. movement) articles both mention the UCC, and the quote comes from Beyond Redemption, a Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report from Winter 2002.)

User 68.89.176.128 (talk · contribs) has just deleted the whole section with the edit comment:

Conspiracy Theory section rather unilateral and unfounded. Also based soley on one organization's judgment. If you're going to post one verdict, let the other side speak. Audi alteram partem.

I'm going to undo the deletion, because I don't see that there are two sides here. I'm not aware of anyone denying that some far-right groups have constitutional/legal theories about the UCC. I can find other reliable sources for this stuff if needed. (I tried to keep the section short to avoid giving it "undue weight".) Perhaps the anon is claiming that these theories are not conspiracy theories? (But those theories which I've read about all do involve conspiracies.) What do other editors (especially the anon) think?

Cheers, CWC(talk) 06:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this section short

I've just trimmed the "Conspiracy Theories" section a bit, because it seemed to have grown into WP:UNDUE territory. This real topic of this article is an interesting piece of legislation, not the conspiracy theories. (Hmm. Maybe it's because I live in another Federation of States that I find the Uniform Code stuff interesting.) One day, I hope, Wikipedia will have good articles about the various groups with odd ideas about the UCC, and that section will basically be a list of those articles. Until then, let's put info about the beliefs and history of those groups into the articles about those groups, not in this article. Thanks, CWC 16:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with editor CWC that the conspiracy theories section should be kept to a minimum in this article, for the reasons CWC stated. Wikipedia has done the same thing with tax protester theories (frivolous arguments about U.S. Federal income tax law) in the articles on taxation. We keep the tax protester stuff to a minimum in the articles on taxation, and set up separate, specific articles for the tax protester stuff. Otherwise you do have an "undue weight" problem, as most conspiracy theories (and all tax protester theories) are extreme fringe theories. Yours, Famspear 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to support deleting this section entirely. Wikipedia is not a place for every crackpot theory on the internet. This is an example of some wackos who try to cheat people and banks out of money. We don't have an article for every bank heist in history. If these groups are substantial enough to warrant an entry, their theories should be listed there, linked to the UCC.

This section should be deleted, because nobody really knows what they are babbling about, based upon what I see here. As far as "wackos" trying to cheat people and banks out of money, there are no reliable sources here that state who and how this happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.55.97 (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Omit Demeaning Terminology

As I have patiently explained to Famspear at my own discussion page the use of demeaning terminology such as "Conspiracy Theory," "far right," or "protester" violates the neutrality policy of Wikipedia. The presentation of a well-reasoned view that opposes an established view, law, custom, or belief has every bit as much validity as any supportive expression. In order to maintain neutrality, a writer must express in such a way as to stick to the topic at hand by describing it neutrally and factually, then present the various views without seeming or seeking to favor or disfavor one or the other.

For example in your Conspiracy Theories section, you demeaned those theories by reference to "Conspiracy", and you demeaned the advocates of such theories by referring to them as "far right." This has the effect of making relatively unbiased people develop a bias against the theories merely because of the descriptive term referring to the advocate.

Since people tend to believe doctors, lawyers, professors, presidents, and others with altitude, using such a term in connection with their names gives them altitude, and inclines people toward believing them. Often that unfairly and wrongly biases the reader because the world contains a number of goofballs who have such titles by their names. If you say that "courts have ruled against such arguments," you seem to demean the argument, for the judge might have rendered the ruling under the influence of illegal drugs, or under threat of the the IRS to audit his tax return if he did not render the ruling, or simply under the influence of a mafia bribe. Why should you demean the argument in such a situation?

How do you avoid giving altitude to an opinion or act by such a scurrilous person as a judge on drugs, or on the narcotic of arrogance? How to do you maintain neutrality of expression when you don't really know all the relevant facts?

I know of only one way. Express the facts that you do know, support them by citing your proof sources, and let the chips fall where they may.

Intelligent people make their best decisions when possessed of the full set of relevant facts. And an improper investigation of the relevant facts will tend to yield a relatively untrue perspective of those facts. If you know relative facts, you should express them, but you should not demeaningly label either the views or their advocates or detractors.

Frankly, I like the fact that you wrote your little topic about other views regarding the UCC. I ask that you pick benign and neutral labels to replace "Conspiracy Theories" and "far right".

Bob Hurt 22:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing NPOV about referring to fringe theories (which have never been accepted by any legal authority) as "conspiracy theories", or referring fringe groups (which have been connected to criminal and terrorist activities) as "far right" or extremist". There is nothing about NPOV which means we can't call a spade a spade. I refer you to WP:UNDUE. As far as your allegation that "the judge may have ruled this way because he was drunk/threatened/sad because his dog died/etc., this is pure unprovable speculation, and I highly doubt that all the judges who have reviewed such fringe theories in court were all part of some grand conspiracy, or all wrong. The courts in this country say what the law is; it is their job to interpret statutes. (And I can tell you that if the IRS tried to influence a court ruling by intimidating judges, you better believe there would be hell to pay.) --Eastlaw 07:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that this information should be included, and in fact, there should be an entirely new topic on alternative theories surrounding the UCC's history, written in an unbiased manner. It is clear that Bob Hurt views these as "fringe", when in fact he has no idea at all how many people in the world subscribe to these "theories", or how many judges/lawyers actually know what the real truth is. In order for Wikipedia to be the valuable resource that it is, it should follow the principles of "Dragnet": Just the facts! The problem with keeping a section like this "small" is that it doesn't do the topic justice, since there really is a GREAT DEAL of information that could be included, with plenty of footnotes possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.39.79 (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging "Key Topics" article here

Here's a place to discuss whether to WP:MERGE the article on Key Topics in the Uniform Commercial Code into this one. Note that the "Key Topics" article is essentially the work of a trollish sockpuppet account, so it's content is not necessarily trustworthy. CWC 00:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at it and gawd it brought back painful memories of my first year law school Contracts course. The stuff reads like it was copied straight out of some student outline or study aid. Merge if you think it's salvageable. Wl219 07:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who initially placed the merge tag on there, but on second thought, most of what is on the Key Topics page is already covered elsewhere. Perhaps it should just be deleted? --Eastlaw 07:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I teach Business Law in a Community College in NC and believe that any commentary interpreting the UCC out of leagalese into common language will be greatly appreciated by instructors like myself. It is important that the summaries are reviewed for correctness by legal experts BEFORE being posted.24.199.235.162 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge and delete unsourced text. -- • • • Blue Pixel 03:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

CONSPIRACY THEORY …11:23 P.M. E.S.T. ...............May we all have some dates reflecting these theories or is this Art Economics History story a living example of one's self interest . ................THANK YOU.David George DeLancey (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)