Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

1982

University of Richmond

Uniform Commercial Code

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

The Perfect Tender Rule - An "Acceptable" Interpretation, David Frisch Jan 1982

The Perfect Tender Rule - An "Acceptable" Interpretation, David Frisch

Law Faculty Publications

The focus of this article will be on the inherent conflict between the buyer's right to reject and the seller's right to cure. We will first review both the scholarly commentary addressing the issue and the judicial interpretations of the rejection-cure conflict. We will then propose a resolution to the conflict, or an acceptable interpretation, which serves to promote the expressed purposes and policies of the Uniform Commercial Code.


Toxic Substances Litigation In The Fourth Circuit, Francis E. Mcgovern Jan 1982

Toxic Substances Litigation In The Fourth Circuit, Francis E. Mcgovern

University of Richmond Law Review

Personal injuries caused by toxic substances have generated problems of major concern to our social, political and legal systems. Reports in the news media concerning harm caused by toxic substances and expressions of public awareness of potential dangers associated with exposure to toxic substances are commonplace. Legislatures, administrative agencies and courts at both federal and state levels have begun to devote substantial energy to addressing issues raised by exposure to toxic Substances. Scientific, industrial, financial, and legal communities are seeking to deal with these problems from a number of different perspectives. Just as terms such as "Love Canal" and "asbestosis" …


Products Liability And The Virginia Statute Of Limitations - A Call For The Legislative Rescue Squad, Robert I. Stevenson Jan 1982

Products Liability And The Virginia Statute Of Limitations - A Call For The Legislative Rescue Squad, Robert I. Stevenson

University of Richmond Law Review

In recent years a flood of federally-funded scientific break-throughs have on almost a weekly basis established that some form of cancer or other dreaded disease is "caused" by exposure to a man-made product often not previously suspected of having a toxic tendency. Persons so afflicted then seek recovery from the product manufacturer. Their basis in tort is either for negligence in producing so harmful (and thus defective) a product, or for having failed to warn of the danger, or for "strict liability" within Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Where, as in Virginia, there is uncertainty as to …