Article 7: Documents of Title

Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted the 2003 revisions of Article 7. There have been two new adoptions since last year's report, in New York and Wyoming. One state -- Vermont -- has a bill pending as of this writing. In OEC Freight (NY) v. KT Superwin Corp, the court wa...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Business Lawyer 2015-10, Vol.70 (4), p.1229-1232
1. Verfasser: Schutz, Anthony B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1232
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1229
container_title The Business Lawyer
container_volume 70
creator Schutz, Anthony B.
description Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted the 2003 revisions of Article 7. There have been two new adoptions since last year's report, in New York and Wyoming. One state -- Vermont -- has a bill pending as of this writing. In OEC Freight (NY) v. KT Superwin Corp, the court was faced with a motion to amend an answer to plead a counterclaim concerning a purportedly unreasonable sale of goods to satisfy a carrier's lien. In that case, the carrier remained unpaid and sold $80,000 of goods in its custody to partially satisfy its lien. In KTAV Publishing House Inc v. Mercedes Distribution Center, the court was faced with a situation in which the end of a long-term storage relationship revealed, perhaps, a shortfall in the amount of inventory stored in a warehouse. While not arising under Article 7, Libby v. Lichte is an interesting case involving liability in a bailment context.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_1725542370</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26417536</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26417536</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-j204t-6322b26620d8df8924366503f92988789d9a2e6d4fd176908259a9e66bc706fc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjE1LAzEQQINYcK39CYJ4DyQzyWTmWIpfUPCi52W7SaBLZdckHvz3Furp8eDxrlQHlpy2jHytOmNM0MQiN-q21umsFhg71W1LO46n9BDu1CoPp5o2_1yrz-enj92r3r-_vO22ez2BcU0TAhyACEzkmFnAIZE3mAWEObBEGSBRdDnaQGIYvAySiA5jMJRHXKvHy3cp8_dPqq0vaZlLq70N4L0DDOYc3V-iqba59Es5fg3ltwdyNngk_AOzYzkO</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1725542370</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Article 7: Documents of Title</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><creator>Schutz, Anthony B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Schutz, Anthony B.</creatorcontrib><description>Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted the 2003 revisions of Article 7. There have been two new adoptions since last year's report, in New York and Wyoming. One state -- Vermont -- has a bill pending as of this writing. In OEC Freight (NY) v. KT Superwin Corp, the court was faced with a motion to amend an answer to plead a counterclaim concerning a purportedly unreasonable sale of goods to satisfy a carrier's lien. In that case, the carrier remained unpaid and sold $80,000 of goods in its custody to partially satisfy its lien. In KTAV Publishing House Inc v. Mercedes Distribution Center, the court was faced with a situation in which the end of a long-term storage relationship revealed, perhaps, a shortfall in the amount of inventory stored in a warehouse. While not arising under Article 7, Libby v. Lichte is an interesting case involving liability in a bailment context.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-6899</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2164-1838</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: Business Law Section of the American Bar Association</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Bills of lading ; Breach of contract ; Court decisions ; Duty of care ; Liability ; Negligence ; Revisions ; State court decisions ; Survey—Uniform Commercial Code ; Uniform Commercial Code-US ; Warehousing</subject><ispartof>The Business Lawyer, 2015-10, Vol.70 (4), p.1229-1232</ispartof><rights>2015 by the American Bar Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Bar Association Fall 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26417536$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26417536$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>312,314,776,780,787,799,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schutz, Anthony B.</creatorcontrib><title>Article 7: Documents of Title</title><title>The Business Lawyer</title><description>Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted the 2003 revisions of Article 7. There have been two new adoptions since last year's report, in New York and Wyoming. One state -- Vermont -- has a bill pending as of this writing. In OEC Freight (NY) v. KT Superwin Corp, the court was faced with a motion to amend an answer to plead a counterclaim concerning a purportedly unreasonable sale of goods to satisfy a carrier's lien. In that case, the carrier remained unpaid and sold $80,000 of goods in its custody to partially satisfy its lien. In KTAV Publishing House Inc v. Mercedes Distribution Center, the court was faced with a situation in which the end of a long-term storage relationship revealed, perhaps, a shortfall in the amount of inventory stored in a warehouse. While not arising under Article 7, Libby v. Lichte is an interesting case involving liability in a bailment context.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Bills of lading</subject><subject>Breach of contract</subject><subject>Court decisions</subject><subject>Duty of care</subject><subject>Liability</subject><subject>Negligence</subject><subject>Revisions</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>Survey—Uniform Commercial Code</subject><subject>Uniform Commercial Code-US</subject><subject>Warehousing</subject><issn>0007-6899</issn><issn>2164-1838</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNotjE1LAzEQQINYcK39CYJ4DyQzyWTmWIpfUPCi52W7SaBLZdckHvz3Furp8eDxrlQHlpy2jHytOmNM0MQiN-q21umsFhg71W1LO46n9BDu1CoPp5o2_1yrz-enj92r3r-_vO22ez2BcU0TAhyACEzkmFnAIZE3mAWEObBEGSBRdDnaQGIYvAySiA5jMJRHXKvHy3cp8_dPqq0vaZlLq70N4L0DDOYc3V-iqba59Es5fg3ltwdyNngk_AOzYzkO</recordid><startdate>20151001</startdate><enddate>20151001</enddate><creator>Schutz, Anthony B.</creator><general>Business Law Section of the American Bar Association</general><general>American Bar Association</general><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>885</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ANIOZ</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRAZJ</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M1F</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151001</creationdate><title>Article 7</title><author>Schutz, Anthony B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-j204t-6322b26620d8df8924366503f92988789d9a2e6d4fd176908259a9e66bc706fc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Bills of lading</topic><topic>Breach of contract</topic><topic>Court decisions</topic><topic>Duty of care</topic><topic>Liability</topic><topic>Negligence</topic><topic>Revisions</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>Survey—Uniform Commercial Code</topic><topic>Uniform Commercial Code-US</topic><topic>Warehousing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schutz, Anthony B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Global News &amp; ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Banking Information Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax &amp; Banking Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax &amp; Banking Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Banking Information Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>The Business Lawyer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schutz, Anthony B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Article 7: Documents of Title</atitle><jtitle>The Business Lawyer</jtitle><date>2015-10-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>70</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1229</spage><epage>1232</epage><pages>1229-1232</pages><issn>0007-6899</issn><eissn>2164-1838</eissn><abstract>Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted the 2003 revisions of Article 7. There have been two new adoptions since last year's report, in New York and Wyoming. One state -- Vermont -- has a bill pending as of this writing. In OEC Freight (NY) v. KT Superwin Corp, the court was faced with a motion to amend an answer to plead a counterclaim concerning a purportedly unreasonable sale of goods to satisfy a carrier's lien. In that case, the carrier remained unpaid and sold $80,000 of goods in its custody to partially satisfy its lien. In KTAV Publishing House Inc v. Mercedes Distribution Center, the court was faced with a situation in which the end of a long-term storage relationship revealed, perhaps, a shortfall in the amount of inventory stored in a warehouse. While not arising under Article 7, Libby v. Lichte is an interesting case involving liability in a bailment context.</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>Business Law Section of the American Bar Association</pub><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0007-6899
ispartof The Business Lawyer, 2015-10, Vol.70 (4), p.1229-1232
issn 0007-6899
2164-1838
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_reports_1725542370
source Jstor Complete Legacy; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Business Source Complete
subjects Agreements
Bills of lading
Breach of contract
Court decisions
Duty of care
Liability
Negligence
Revisions
State court decisions
Survey—Uniform Commercial Code
Uniform Commercial Code-US
Warehousing
title Article 7: Documents of Title
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T13%3A19%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Article%207:%20Documents%20of%20Title&rft.jtitle=The%20Business%20Lawyer&rft.au=Schutz,%20Anthony%20B.&rft.date=2015-10-01&rft.volume=70&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1229&rft.epage=1232&rft.pages=1229-1232&rft.issn=0007-6899&rft.eissn=2164-1838&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26417536%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1725542370&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26417536&rfr_iscdi=true