Without Prejudice Works!

[Codee]

The UCC and why it only protects CORPORATIONS and legal fictions. Some people think that UCC provisions such as 1-308 somehow protect them from the jurisdiction of the code. This contention could not be more in error. Lets take a look at two classic UCC cites.

Originally Posted by UCC 1-308

§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.
(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

So it should be clear that this section only provides protections to “parties.” Lets now look up “party” so we know what it is, since I doubt this section is protecting fraternity keggers. I think it should be easy to see that “a party is a person subject to the commercial code.

Originally Posted by UCC 1-201 sec 26

(26) "Party", as distinguished from "third party", means a person that has engaged in a transaction or made an agreement subject to [the Uniform Commercial Code].

And lets go ahead and see what the code says about “persons.” Remember, I am claiming “this code only protects corporations and legal fictions.”

Originally Posted by UCC 1-201 sec 27

(27) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

So now we have put some light on UCC 1-308 and exposed it. Lets take a look now at one word in UCC 1-308, the word “right.” Lets see if we want to use any section of this code based around it preserving or giving rights.

Originally Posted by UCC 1-201 sec 34

(34) "Right" includes remedy.

Hmmm… Rights only mean remedy huh??? Ok lets take a look at remedy and what it means. WARNING- there is a double circular definition in here, but that was the lawyers fault. (derivation of remedy used in its own definition and “right” used in its own definition.

Originally Posted by UCC 1-201 sec 32 & 2

[(32) "Remedy" means any remedial right to which an aggrieved party is entitled with or without resort to a tribunal.

(2) "Aggrieved party" means a party entitled to pursue a remedy.

So we see that UCC rights are only those things to which a “party” is entitled to. Now just go back up a few paragraphs of this document and follow where party leads.

[greatwolf75]

When you look up the word person, it mentions an individual. Wouldn't any person be an individual?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by greatwolf75

When you look up the word person, it mentions an individual. Wouldn't any person be an individual?

An individual means one of something. Maybe this way is more clear though, "Individual means non plural." So a person means and individual partnership (not two), a corporation (not two) an such and such.

So any one person is an individual person.

What a person IS comes after the telling that it is only one of the things mentioned.

What they want you to see is "A person includes an individual, man, corporation...

Notice that it is not styled "A corporation, a trust, a ..." All of the "a" articles have been replaced by the word "individual" at the begining of the list. Otherwise there would be an "a" or a pluralised "s" at the end.

Lets take it one bit further. Assume that when they mention an individual they mean a man. OK which man do they mean? See the English problem?

[Big Al]

So Codee does this take us right back to STRAWMAN?

[greatwolf75]

Originally Posted by Codee

An individual means one of something. Maybe this way is more clear though, "Individual means non plural." So a person means and individual partnership (not two), a corporation (not two) an such and such.

So any one person is an individual person.

What a person IS comes after the telling that it is only one of the things mentioned.

What they want you to see is "A person includes an individual, man, corporation...

Notice that it is not styled "A corporation, a trust, a ..." All of the "a" articles have been replaced by the word "individual" at the begining of the list. Otherwise there would be an "a" or a pluralised "s" at the end.

Lets take it one bit further. Assume that when they mention an individual they mean a man. OK which man do they mean? See the English problem?

Okay, so what all this means is, we are not what we would call a person under their meanings, or am I still way off on this subject?

[theghost]

Originally Posted by Codee

An individual means one of something. Maybe this way is more clear though, "Individual means non plural." So a person means and individual partnership (not two), a corporation (not two) an such and such.

So any one person is an individual person.

What a person IS comes after the telling that it is only one of the things mentioned.

What they want you to see is "A person includes an individual, man, corporation...

Notice that it is not styled "A corporation, a trust, a ..." All of the "a" articles have been replaced by the word "individual" at the begining of the list. Otherwise there would be an "a" or a pluralised "s" at the end.

Lets take it one bit further. Assume that when they mention an individual they mean a man. OK which man do they mean? See the English problem?

Codee, your point is well taken, and well written. I for one never go around quoting ANY statute, code, regulation or case law, as if it pertained to, or protected me in any way. While the UCC is written in harmony with the common law, one should not quote the particular code section within his/her documents, if he or she claims to be sovereign. Although, one can use the common law language contained within the code, such as "without prejudice" without any problems, and this is what I do. Or, if one must cite a code for some reason, one might say something like;..."pursuant to "your" code section such and such".........Then you're simply pointing out/reminding them of the rules that bind "them".

[mnchicago]

Charles6:

Are you saying that you were able to obtain an Illinois DL
signing "Without Prejudice" above your name?

TIA

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

Charles6:

Are you saying that you were able to obtain an Illinois DL
signing "Without Prejudice" above your name?

TIA

10-4.
That’s what I’m saying. I change it all the time, sometimes I use JOHN DOE “DBA” or without prejudice UCC1-308. The only problem, there is no room, so I have to squeeze it in. I do it all the time.

[mnchicago]

Thanks.

I will have to try it downtown and see if it will work.

[Codee]

GanonWhite,
Yes, I am not what that code calls a person.

Originally Posted by theghost

Codee, your point is well taken, and well written. I for one never go around quoting ANY statute, code, regulation or case law, as if it pertained to, or protected me in any way. While the UCC is written in harmony with the common law, one should not quote the particular code section within his/her documents, if he or she claims to be sovereign. Although, one can use the common law language contained within the code, such as "without prejudice" without any problems, and this is what I do. Or, if one must cite a code for some reason, one might say something like;..."pursuant to "your" code section such and such".........Then you're simply pointing out/reminding them of the rules that bind "them".

The UCC was wrote in "harmony" what ever that means. In its harmony it only addresses corporations and does away with any common law process that the common law provided for corporations. Where ever this did not happen in the code then the common law rules still applied. That is their harmony. Simply, the UCC only provides remedy/rights for corporations.