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

Law Commons

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

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

Series

Uniform Commercial Code

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

A Complaint About Payment Law Under The U.C.C.: What You See Is Often Not What You Get, Gregory E. Maggs Jan 2007

A Complaint About Payment Law Under The U.C.C.: What You See Is Often Not What You Get, Gregory E. Maggs

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

In this Essay, Professor Maggs observes that many provisions of U.C.C. Articles 3, 4, 4A, and 5 are misleading. Although the provisions express certain rules, these rules often actually do not apply because the parties have waived them, because the parties have no practical way to enforce them, or because they are predicated on unrealistic assumptions. Professor Maggs laments that this discrepancy between what the U.C.C. says and reality may have deceived the state legislatures that voted to enact the U.C.C., that it may impose costs on businesses and consumers, and that it clearly hinders the education of lawyers and …


The Waning Importance Of Revisions To U.C.C. Article 2, Gregory E. Maggs Jan 2003

The Waning Importance Of Revisions To U.C.C. Article 2, Gregory E. Maggs

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code governs contracts for the sale of goods. This article seeks to show that, however urgent the need to modernize Article 2 was in 1990, this need ironically has waned with the passage of time. Article 2 requires less change now than it did a decade ago to meet the requirements of modern commerce. The article supports this claim by looking at three very significant developments that have occurred since 1990: the growth of electronic commerce, the decision not to address software licenses in article 2, and the accumulation of a decade of precedents …


Patterns Of Drafting Errors In The Uniform Commercial Code And How Courts Should Respond To Them, Gregory E. Maggs Jan 2002

Patterns Of Drafting Errors In The Uniform Commercial Code And How Courts Should Respond To Them, Gregory E. Maggs

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This article identifies eight recurring patterns of drafting in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). For each of these patterns, and for other idiosyncratic errors, the article recommends specific judicial responses. These responses take advantage of many of the UCC's unique characteristics. While the problem of drafting errors in the UCC may seem minor in light of the model code's high overall quality, the suggested responses can lead to a more efficient and effective application of the statute.


Karl Llewellyn's Fading Imprint On The Jurisprudence Of The Uniform Commercial Code, Gregory E. Maggs Jan 2000

Karl Llewellyn's Fading Imprint On The Jurisprudence Of The Uniform Commercial Code, Gregory E. Maggs

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

When Karl Llewellyn directed the creation of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), he naturally wanted to implement his jurisprudential ideas. He succeeded in giving the U.C.C. at least five important features inspired by Legal Realism. In particular, as a result of his influence, the U.C.C.: (1) favored open-ended standards over firm rules; (2) avoided formalities; (3) required and facilitated the "purposive interpretation" of its provisions; (4) did not attempt to provide an exclusive statement of the law, but instead directed courts to supplement its rules with general legal and equitable principles; and (5) provided a range of remedies that principally …


The Holder In Due Course Doctrine As A Default Rule, Gregory E. Maggs Jan 1998

The Holder In Due Course Doctrine As A Default Rule, Gregory E. Maggs

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

The "holder in due course" doctrine, as implemented by Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, says that a party who acquires a negotiable instrument in good faith, for value, and without notice of certain facts, and who also meets some additional requirements, takes the instrument free of competing claims of ownership and most defenses to payment. The standard justification for immunizing a holder in due course from claims and defenses is that the immunity will encourage beneficial commercial transactions. The standard explanation for the various requirements for attaining holder in due course status - good faith, value, lacking notice …