Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Warranty Of Merchantability And Computer Software Contracts: A Square Peg Won't Fit In A Round Hole, Edward G. Durney
The Warranty Of Merchantability And Computer Software Contracts: A Square Peg Won't Fit In A Round Hole, Edward G. Durney
Washington Law Review
Courts have consistently held that Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) governs transactions involving computer hardware. Treatment of computer software transactions has been less consistent. This Comment contends that computer software, an intangible, is not within the scope of Article 2. It further contends that the warranty of merchantability cannot meaningfully be applied by analogy in computer software contracts. Finally, this Comment concludes that existing tort and contract causes of action provide software users with sufficient protection.
Warranties—Uniform Commercial Code—Effects Of Federal Warranty Law On Washington U.C.C. Provisions—Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312 (Supp. V. 1975), Guy Towle
Washington Law Review
Consumer product warranties—their creation, breach, and remedies upon breach—have generally been controlled by the common law and Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) provisions in each state. Washington is no exception, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act should have a significant impact upon the traditional warranty law of this jurisdiction. This note will briefly discuss the Act's basic requirements and then consider the impact of several of the Act's major provisions upon similar or conflicting provisions of the Washington Uniform Commercial Code. Primary emphasis will be placed upon the Act's effects regarding the doctrine of privity, disclaimer of implied warranties, limitation on remedies …
Ucc Section 2-318: Effect On Washington Requirements Of Privity In Products Liability Suits, Anon
Ucc Section 2-318: Effect On Washington Requirements Of Privity In Products Liability Suits, Anon
Washington Law Review
In recent years, there has been considerable development in the law governing liability of a seller to persons other than his immediate buyer for personal injuries caused by defective products. The rule of caveat emptor has been progressively eroded. The majority of writers and an increasing number of courts have adopted the position that a seller cannot avoid liability on the ground that he is not in privity of contract with the injured party. The Washington court appears to be following this trend. The process of judicial development, however, may be jeopardized by the recent enactment in Washington of section …
The Uniform Commercial Code—Sb 122, Richard Cosway, Warren L. Shattuck
The Uniform Commercial Code—Sb 122, Richard Cosway, Warren L. Shattuck
Washington Law Review
Senate Bill 122, enacting the Uniform Commercial Code in Washington, was passed during the recent legislative session. The effective date of the new statute is June 30, 1967. Since 1952, when the Uniform Commercial Code [hereinafter cited as UCC] was first proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute, it has been enacted by forty-one states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. It is now much easier to list the-states which have not enacted it. These are: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, South Carolina, and Vermont. As …
Sales—A Comparison Of The Law In Washington And The Uniform Commercial Code (Part V), Richard Cosway
Sales—A Comparison Of The Law In Washington And The Uniform Commercial Code (Part V), Richard Cosway
Washington Law Review
The final part of this five-part article, resuming with section 2-701, Remedies for Breach of Collateral Contracts Not Impaired.
The Uniform Commercial Code—A Modernization Of Commercial Law, Warren L. Shattuck
The Uniform Commercial Code—A Modernization Of Commercial Law, Warren L. Shattuck
Washington Law Review
Editor's Note: The Uniform Commercial Code continues to be the major topic of interest in the commercial law area as additional states enact this important statute. The roster now includes Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. This issue of the Review contains the first of a series of articles by Richard Cosway, which will complete the discussion of the sales coverage of the Code, commenced by Ralph W. Johnson (Sales-A Comparison of the Law in Washington and the Uniform Commercial Code, 34 Wash. L. Rev. 78 (1959)), and will continue with a comparison of the Code and …
Sales—A Comparison Of The Law In Washington And The Uniform Commercial Code (Part 2), Richard Cosway
Sales—A Comparison Of The Law In Washington And The Uniform Commercial Code (Part 2), Richard Cosway
Washington Law Review
This article is a continuation of the analysis made by Professor Ralph Johnson in an earlier issue of this Review of the effect on Washington law of article 2 (Sales) of the Uniform Commercial Code. As such, it will continue the format there established of a section by section analysis of the Code. Continues with section 2-204, Formation in General.
Sales—A Comparison Of The Law In Washington And The Uniform Commercial Code, Ralph W. Johnson
Sales—A Comparison Of The Law In Washington And The Uniform Commercial Code, Ralph W. Johnson
Washington Law Review
The purpose of this article is to analyze and comment upon the changes that the Code would make on the sales law of Washington. Article 2 of the Code would entirely replace the existing Uniform Sales Act in Washington and some of the Washington case law.
Secured Transactions (Other Than Real Estate Mortgages)—A Comparison Of The Law In Washington And The Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9 [Part 2], Warren L. Shattuck
Secured Transactions (Other Than Real Estate Mortgages)—A Comparison Of The Law In Washington And The Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9 [Part 2], Warren L. Shattuck
Washington Law Review
Continues the article started in volume 29, number 1, with section 9—301, Persons Who Take Priority Over Unperfected Security Interests.