Any further revision of Article 2 will invite nonuniformity One of the arguments made by sellers in opposition to the 1999 Annual Meeting draft was the asserted risk of nonuniformity if the modest improvements in that draft for consumer buyers were not accepted in every state. If the Conference and the ALI now go forward now with a new revision of Article 2, there will be a high risk of nonuniformity for different reason. The Conference's unwillingness to put forward a revised Article 2 which is opposed by industry makes it clear that the Conference cannot propose a truly modern Article 2-one addressing the realities of the use of standard form contracts. Consumer organizations such as ours will oppose any revision to Article 2 that fails to responsibly address the key development in sales law since Article 2 was first written-the widespread use of the standard form contract. At the same time, the strong industry opposition to the modest provisions on consumer form contracts in the 1999 Annual Meeting draft shows that the Conference cannot address standard form contracts without generating industry opposition.
State legislators care about the interests of consumers.
Further, the Conference will not be able to make a credible case for modernizing Article 2 after 40 years while ignoring the major problem arising under Article 2 for consumers. In many larger states, consumer organizations have a role in the state legislative process. No revision to Article 2 is likely to pass in those states unless it addresses the standard form consumer contract in a meaningful way. However, the Conference leadership's recent July 1999 action indicates that it has no intention of doing so. For this reason, the Conference and the ALI should now halt further attempts to revise Article 2.