ContractsProf Blog

Editor: Myanna Dellinger
University of South Dakota School of Law

Saturday, March 17, 2007

UCC Article 1 Legislative Update (3/17)

By affixing their respective signatures to North Dakota HB 1035 and Utah SB 91, Governors John Hoeven and Jon Hunstman, Jr. made North Dakota and Utah the 23rd and 24th states to enact a version of Revised Article 1.  As do all 22 of their predecessors, North Dakota's and Utah's enactments eschew uniform R1-301 for language tracking pre-Revised 1-105.  North Dakota becomes the 17th enacting state to adopt the unitary good faith standard of uniform R1-201(b)(20); Utah becomes the 7th to retain the bifurcated good faith standard of pre-Revised 1-201(19) and 2-103(1)(b) & 2A-103(3).  Utah's version of Revised Article 1 should take effect on April 30, 2007, while North Dakota's should take effect on August 1, 2007.

Elsewhere, Indiana SB 419 has passed the Indiana Senate and the House Financial Institutions Committee has unanimously recommended its adoption. Kansas SB 183 has passed the Kansas Senate and was the subject of a March 8 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. As yet, the Kansas Legislature's web site has not reported any action by the committee.  Both bills passed their originating chambers only after the responsible committees amended the introduced bills to replace uniform R1-301 with language tracking pre-Revised 1-105.

Florida HB 151 and SB 252 continue to wend their ways through their respective originating chambers.  No action has been reported on Rhode Island SB 105 since its introduction.  The drafters of South Dakota SB 85 have, for all intents and purposes, withdrawn it.

Knowledgeable sources I spoke to at this week's unseasonably chilly ABA Business Law Section Spring Meeting in Washington, DC told me that new bills were imminent in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

Erin go bragh!

[Keith A. Rowley]

March 17, 2007 in Legislation | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Blogger Quoted

One of our own ContractsProf bloggers is quoted in this story, about a spate of reversals for a judge in Manhattan:

Contract law and leases are not necessarily any more complex in New York than in other states, despite the rabid real estate market and complaints that tenants have unusually powerful rights under laws governing leases in New York City. One thing that can make it more challenging is that there is simply a bigger volume of decisional law in New York courts than in other states.

“That has the potential to make things more complicated,” says Meredith Miller, a professor at Touro Law School who teaches contracts.

[Miriam A. Cherry]

March 13, 2007 in In the News | Permalink | TrackBack (0)