Remedy and the Uniform Commercial Code

[allodial]

While knowing about the UCC can be very helpful, I would fancy it to be quite truthful that there is not necessarily remedy to be found in the UCC. This is not to say that the UCC does not have some road signs or stealthy arrows pointing toward remedy. However, for edification this thread has been started to allow some who are yet to be weaned off of purely I-saw-it-on-the-Internet-school-of-legal-theory by way of seeing some insightful scans from actual law books that you can probably feel and hold in your very own hands if you choose to.





The above is from a book titled "ABCs of the UCC: Articles 3 and 4". The ABCs of the UCC are very informative and easy-to-read books for most any level of competence IMHO. One might do well to pay particular attention to:

...the Code, even on its own terms, does not purport to contain all the law there is on a particular subject; the Code may be uniform, but it is not comprehensive. The Code invites us to consult non-Code law to "fill in the gaps" in its coverage.

If you want some free boil-down: the Code is useless and/or just a bunch of jabber apart from contract law, constitutional law or other relevant law--at least that is how I might in some ways view it. The Code is like "in medea res".

[allodial]

Now if that wasn't enough. Be advised that the entire foreword isn't shown. However what should follow is the text that precedes it. However, such scan is from the beginning of a book entitled "ABCs of the UCC Article 9". Note the exact same foreword is given. What a way to get through thick skulls, huh? Repeat the same foreword over and over. Well if what you have read isn't enough....



If the first 3 scans weren't enough perhaps honing in on the following might suffice to serve as a jolt to freshly-scented reality.

The key to deciphering that shorthand is frequently found in the definitions to the Code, but is often found in an understanding of non-Code law.

If you focus on the code without at least studying contract law...you might be setting yourself up for some trouble.

However, if that's not enough to ward off a lazy-minded, UCC-centric world view, enters "Federal & Governmental Preemption".



The UCC is just part of or another facet of something larger...and perhaps for some a distraction from something far more worth studying.

[shikamaru]

I've learned some time ago that codes are a (distracting) summary.
You need to consult the statutes, acts, statute at large, and other resources to get down to the meat.

Even better to retrieve this stuff from the official archives.

[EZrhythm]

Considering that Refusal For Cause, Conditional Acceptance, Accepted For Value and NOTICE's, etc. are backed by the UCC, how are you interpreting that remedy is not found there? Based on that there aren't clear instructions and that these remedies stem from common law?

[motla68]

This is true. You will find the words common law in them statutes but not the type of law itself technically being that if the state is a corporation communicating through " PERSONS " of interest.

Breaking the words down by their roots, corps => Dead man, anything with tion at the end is usually a adjective describing action, so from this you can basically say DEAD MEN IN ACTION or at least them who put masks on and communicate through the masks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona

Philippians 3:20 " thy communication is in heavan ".

I am a man, not a individual, not a person, not a natural person, just a man.

The spirit whom is real uses this vessel called a man to communicate through. Spirit is based upon man's moral conscience, if good is in us then bad is in us too, the art of balancing that scale is the law in common that we all have.

[allodial]

Considering that Refusal For Cause, Conditional Acceptance, Accepted For Value and NOTICE's, etc. are backed by the UCC, how are you interpreting that remedy is not found there? Based on that there aren't clear instructions and that these remedies stem from common law?

Those are remedies per contract law, equity or the like. That UCC is might be an abstraction or that makes references to underlying law rather than a source of law is the point of the thread.

This is true. You will find the words common law in them statutes but not the type of law itself technically being that if the state is a corporation communicating through " PERSONS " of interest.

Breaking the words down by their roots, corps => Dead man, anything with tion at the end is usually a adjective describing action, so from this you can basically say DEAD MEN IN ACTION or at least them who put masks on and communicate through the masks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona

Philippians 3:20 " thy communication is in heavan ".

I am a man, not a individual, not a person, not a natural person, just a man.

The spirit whom is real uses this vessel called a man to communicate through. Spirit is based upon man's moral conscience, if good is in us then bad is in us too, the art of balancing that scale is the law in common that we all have.

A man-type being in a costume or uniform who carried what appeared to be a gun asked me where I lived? I replied that I travel around. So ultimately to clarify I asked him: "Are you asking me where I will put this body during sleep?" Mere men? Or sons of God? They want all to believe that they are only a stack of meat. One asked me "How tall are you?" I replied: "Are you asking me how tall this body is?" One pointed on a screen and asked me if a cluster of pixels was me. I replied: "How could I be a bunch of dots on a computer screen?"

***
I've given this treatise before. Let the Code "speak" for itself.


For example, if any instrument, bill or the like comes to "exist" as a result of fraud, coercion or of there is lack of meeting of the minds or lack of an enforceable contract the Code is a no-go. Contract law trumps. Refusal for cause relates to contract law and laws against involuntary servitude. It is not sourced in the Uniform Commercial Code which simply refers to or encodes a superior body of laws or principles.



UCC 1-308 is a reminder of laws against involuntary servitude and principles of contract formation in that if you don't want to contract and you're confronted by an insane man in a uniform carrying a gun just can simply write "without prejudice" on what you're being coerced to sign rather than making a stink.

[motla68]

Those are remedies per contract law, equity or the like. That UCC is might be an abstraction or that makes references to underlying law rather than a source of law is the point of the thread.



A man-type being in a costume or uniform who carried what appeared to be a gun asked me where I lived? I replied that I travel around. So ultimately to clarify I asked him: "Are you asking me where I will put this body during sleep?" Mere men? Or sons of God? They want all to believe that they are only a stack of meat. One asked me "How tall are you?" I replied: "Are you asking me how tall this body is?" One pointed on a screen and asked me if a cluster of pixels was me. I replied: "How could I be a bunch of dots on a computer screen?"

***
I've given this treatise before. Let the Code "speak" for itself.


For example, if any instrument, bill or the like comes to "exist" as a result of fraud, coercion or of there is lack of meeting of the minds or lack of an enforceable contract the Code is a no-go. Contract law trumps. Refusal for cause relates to contract law and laws against involuntary servitude. It is not sourced in the Uniform Commercial Code which simply refers to or encodes a superior body of laws or principles.



UCC 1-308 is a reminder of laws against involuntary servitude and principles of contract formation in that if you don't want to contract and you're confronted by an insane man in a uniform carrying a gun just can simply write "without prejudice" on what you're being coerced to sign rather than making a stink.

Yes, so one has a choice to promote it or not promote it. Also if I choose not to use it then it cannot supersede the law that I chose to use. Additionally it appears that even if I am using a different law then I can use certain terms within the code to communicate with someone who is using that law. ... am i reading that correctly?

[allodial]

Yes, so one has a choice to promote it or not promote it. Also if I choose not to use it then it cannot supersede the law that I chose to use. Additionally it appears that even if I am using a different law then I can use certain terms within the code to communicate with someone who is using that law. ... am i reading that correctly?

Promote it? Its part of the law of many states. If you have a bank account in any of those states, its not about promoting it. The UCC is in effect there as adopted. The point is that it is far better to study contract law, torts, constitutional law and other underlying law than to merely study the UCC alone. That is why even law students choke on it--its highly advanced and multidisciplinary. For example of the kind of boggle I'm referring to, few people seem to realized that banks are just glorified accounting firms.

[allodial]

Found it. From ABCs of the UCC Articles 3 & 4 2nd Edition:

It is important always to keep in mind that the UCC is state law. When a question involving a negotiable instrument touches upon federal law or involves a federal instrumentality, the law of the United States, rather than the UCC, may govern. The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution makes federal law supreme whether Congress, a United States court or a federal regulatory agency issues the law. This means as well that a note issued by the federal government is subject to federal law, not the UCC.

On occasion, federal law reaches results that be seen as inconsistent with the UCC. For example, in United States v. First National Bank, 263 F.Supp. 298 (D.Mass. 1967) Judge Wyzanski ruled that a postal money order which stated conditions on transfer and arguably lacked words of negotiability was nevertheless negotiable under federal common law.