CPN UCC citation problems

logos · #1 01-23-2005, 09:08 AM

This has probably been addressed before, though I'm unable to find any reference to it.

After cross-referencing with the UCC as posted on Cornell's Law School website (it appears to be the latest version), the UCC cites in the VOD's CPN seem to have typos. In the first paragraph, I think "1-201(4)(28)(30)" should be "1-201(b)(4)(28)(30)" while cite "3-103(a)(6)" isn't codified but listed as reserved (for what?). Any ideas as to what was the CPN's author might have been referencing there?

I also think the UCC elements as codified in the STRAWMAN'S resident state statutes/codes should be cited instead of the equivalent "uniform" cites now appearing. The current cites could be placed in brackets for reference. I believe this would give the CPN more weight because a court would only "see" that state's particular codification of the UCC, right?

#2 01-23-2005, 11:53 AM

Yep. You're on it logos. Reference both your state and UCC for more punch and legitimacy. Make sure you look up the state code as well to see if the state has modified the Uniform version. Technically, the UCC is not even law for that matter. It does not become law until a legislative body enacts it as such. I'm sure you know this.

The 3-103(a)(6) section is reserved for the definition of "good faith." Notice it is defined in just about every other section, but not for negotiable insturments in Art. 3, or it is stated in [brackets] and lists the suggested or tentative definition of good faith. If you find a hard copy of the UCC, like a Thompson West publication, you will see it with the definition instead of "[reserved]." Each section of the UCC has just a bit of a little twist in how they define it. Compare them if you like. But anyway, there was a debate amongst the banks, writers of the code, consumer groups, etc. as to whether to retain the old definition of good faith [1950 UCC?] which was limited to a subjective element ("honesty-in-fact"). The tentative and enacted modern versions, generally have all added an objective element ("the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing").

And to dispel any myths out there, this isn't some conspiracy to hide law or a definition because it is listed as [reserved]. I've seen one of the "gurus" try to advance that and I mocked him/her for it. They basically don't do their homework sometimes.

Hope you are well logos.

-squirrels

logos · #3 01-24-2005, 03:04 PM

squirrels:
Thanks for the input. I am doing well and hope you are, too.

Does anyone have any idea why the UCC has different definitions for "good faith" in its various sections?

#4 01-25-2005, 04:50 PM

I'm not absolutely certain, but I have read cases where the outcome of a victory or defeat in millions of $$$ hinged on which definition to use. So, what I've gleaned is that the various lobbying interests of banks, industry, business, etc. are all fighting for the definition that works most in their favor in the code section that is applicable to their predominant business interests. After the smoke clears, there exists the definition printed on paper. The "good faith" fight hasn't been settled for Art. 3, but the trend seems that the banks are losing the fight - yea!

-squirrels

#5 01-26-2005, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logos

This has probably been addressed before, though I'm unable to find any reference to it.

After cross-referencing with the UCC as posted on Cornell's Law School website (it appears to be the latest version), the UCC cites in the VOD's CPN seem to have typos. In the first paragraph, I think "1-201(4)(28)(30)" should be "1-201(b)(4)(28)(30)" while cite "3-103(a)(6)" isn't codified but listed as reserved (for what?). Any ideas as to what was the CPN's author might have been referencing there?

I also think the UCC elements as codified in the STRAWMAN'S resident state statutes/codes should be cited instead of the equivalent "uniform" cites now appearing. The current cites could be placed in brackets for reference. I believe this would give the CPN more weight because a court would only "see" that state's particular codification of the UCC, right?

logos, there is no subsection (b) in UCC 1-201. so whats written is correct (unless im blind). as far as 3-103(a)(6) being [reserved] you should check your local laws to see if they have adopted the UCC. Squirrels stated that originally it should be "good faith" definition. in my local laws in WA RCW62A.3-103 is not missing the "good faith" definition.

KITCHIE · #6 01-27-2005, 05:57 AM

Hi,

My UCC for the state of Nevada at NRS 104.3103(d): "Good faith" means honesty in fact and the observance of resonable commercial standards ot fair dealing." The cornell site is not the most current.

and in my 1201 which is titles General Definitions and Principals of Interpretation. I do not have a (b)4, 28, 30.

I believe you need to get a good grip on 3305, 3404, 3407 and 3501, 3503, 3505 and part 6, 3601 etc.

These have helped me to understand how they try to swindle us. The thing is that since we are the creditor, read these things like YOU are the bank.

Kitchei