The Uniform Commercial Code What is it? What is it for?

The Uniform Commercial Code: Your Legal Guide to Loans, Mortgages, and Everyday Finances

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs commercial transactions in the United States, providing a standardized set of laws for dealings involving the sale of goods, leasing of goods, negotiable instruments, secured transactions, and other commercial activities. It is one of the most important frameworks for regulating commercial law across different states.

 

Here’s a breakdown of the key areas the UCC governs:

1. Sales of Goods (Article 2): This governs the sale of goods (tangible personal property), including rules on contracts, obligations, and warranties. It provides guidelines for transactions like pricing, delivery, and risk of loss.

2. Leases (Article 2A): This article applies to the leasing of goods, defining how leasing contracts work, including parties’ rights and remedies in the event of a breach.

3. Negotiable Instruments (Article 3): This covers financial instruments such as checks, promissory notes, and drafts, dictating their creation, transfer, and enforcement.

4. Bank Deposits and Collections (Article 4): This deals with the relationship between banks and their customers, including rules on deposits, checks, and collection processes.

5. Funds Transfers (Article 4A): It regulates electronic funds transfers between parties and banks.

6. Letters of Credit (Article 5): Governs the use of letters of credit, commonly used in international trade to guarantee payment.

7. Bulk Sales (Article 6): Provides rules for the sale of business assets in bulk, aimed at preventing fraudulent transfers when a business is sold.

8. Warehouse Receipts, Bills of Lading, and Other Documents of Title (Article 7): This article addresses the handling of goods in storage and transportation, including warehouse receipts and bills of lading.

9. Investment Securities (Article 8): Governs the sale and transfer of securities, such as stocks and bonds, including the rights of the investors.

10. Secured Transactions (Article 9): This is a vital part of the UCC that governs transactions involving security interests in personal property (collateral), including the creation, perfection, and enforcement of security interests.

Each U.S. state has adopted the UCC with some variations, which creates a uniform legal framework that facilitates business operations across state lines. The code is essential for handling modern business transactions, especially those involving goods and “commercial” paper.

 

What is “commercial” ?

Everything is the pubic is “commercial” including just about all crimes, as explicitly stipulated in the Code of Federal Regulations.

27 Code of Federal Regulations § 72.11 – Meaning of terms.

Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.”

 

 

Leave your vote

93792 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

PHH Mortgage Corporation's Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

KEVIN WALKER ESTATE’S Conditional Acceptance Exposes PHH Mortgage’s Motion as Procedurally Defective, Deceitful and Dishonest, Unconstitutional, and Legally Void

PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing, prepared by Neil J. Cooper of HOUSER LLP, violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

Further exacerbating this obstruction, critical documents remain missing from the court docket and record, preventing a full and fair adjudication of the Plaintiffs’ claims. This deliberate suppression of filings by the court and Defendants undermines due process, conceals key evidence, and constitutes judicial misconduct. The failure to properly record and acknowledge Plaintiffs’ filings further demonstrates systematic efforts to manipulate the proceedings in PHH Mortgage’s favor, reinforcing the need for immediate judicial correction, sanctions, and enforcement of Plaintiffs’ default judgment demands.

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage's ("loan servicer") Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage’s (“loan servicer”) Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. exemplifies judicial overreach, procedural abuse, and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights. The motion falsely asserts that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact, denying individuals their right to self-representation and claiming that only "attorneys at law" can act in court. This contradicts established legal principles, including the American Bar Association’s recognition of power of attorney as a legitimate instrument granting broad authority. Additionally, the court has obstructed the record by refusing to file Plaintiffs’ documents, prompting a writ of mandamus to expose the Riverside Federal Court’s misconduct. This case underscores a broader pattern of legal corruption, defamation, and deprivation of rights under the color of law.

Screen Shot 2025 02 19 at 1.22.22 PM

KEVIN WALKER Estate Demands Writ of Mandamus as Riverside Federal Court Engages in Corruption, Record Tampering, and Obstruction of Justice

The United States District Court, Central District of California (Riverside), stands accused of obstructing justice, tampering with records, and violating due process by unlawfully refusing to file and docket legitimate pleadings. Plaintiffs KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al., hav presented irrefutable evidence of judicial misconduct, calling for criminal prosecution, sanctions, and immediate enforcement. Despite proof of receipt, court officials have concealed filings, manipulated records, and obstructed legal proceedings, in direct violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512, 1519, and 2071. With Pam Bondi CC’d on the correspondence, high-level authorities have been alerted to this grave constitutional violation that threatens judicial integrity and fundamental rights.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!