Law Commons^™

Legislative Process And Commercial Law: Lessons From The Copyright Act Of 1976 And The Uniform Commercial Code, Harold R. Weinberg, William J. Woodward Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Overlap and conflict are inevitable in any legal system in which a federal government and state governments both have authority to enact laws. In our federal system, the Constitution's Supremacy Clause identifies federal law as preeminent in case of conflict. When conflict develops and litigation is required to determine whether state or federal law controls the issue at hand, our system analyzes the problem using the term preemption as a basis for analysis.

This Article explores the federal legislative process that precedes judicial preemption decisions. By studying the legislative process for its sensitivity to preemption issues, possible ways to modify …

Roll Over, Llewellyn?, Peter A. Alces

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Diminishing Returns: Doing Without A Separate Provision For Implied Warranty Disclaimers Through Dealing, Performance, And Usage, Aremona G. Bennett

Cleveland State Law Review

This article calls for the rethinking of subsection 2-316(3)(c), the course of dealing, course of performance, and trade usage disclaimer provision. The statutory formation of Article 2 requires elsewhere that, if applicable, any or all of these three factors must be considered when interpreting an agreement. Enactment of this second, separate provision should have directed courts to a more equable construction of implied warranty disclaimers of dealing, performance, and usage. This provision should have guided practitioners to a more reliable understanding of the requirements of such disclaimers. Not only did this provision do neither, but it also blurred the distinction …

Revising Article 9 To Reduce Wasteful Litigation, James J. White

Articles

For reasons that are unclear to me, the committees reviewing the articles of the Uniform Commercial Code and drafting revisions are congenitally conservative. Perhaps these committees take their charge too seriously, namely, to revise, not to revolutionize. Perhaps their intimate knowledge of the subject matter exaggerates the importance of each section and consequently magnifies the apparent size of every change. In any case, my own experience with two such committees tells me that the members quickly become focused on revisions and amendments that any outsider would describe as modest. To the extent that the revision of any of the articles …