2023 New Mexico Statutes › Chapter 55 - Uniform Commercial Code › Article 1 - General Provisions › Part 3 - TERRITORIAL APPLICABILITY AND GENERAL RULES › Section 55-1-302 - Variation by agreement.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in Subsection (b) of this section or elsewhere in the Uniform Commercial Code, the effect of provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code may be varied by agreement.
(b) The obligations of good faith, diligence, reasonableness and care prescribed by the Uniform Commercial Code may not be disclaimed by agreement. The parties, by agreement, may determine the standards by which the performance of those obligations is to be measured if those standards are not manifestly unreasonable. Whenever the Uniform Commercial Code requires an action to be taken within a reasonable time, a time that is not manifestly unreasonable may be fixed by agreement.
(c) The presence in certain provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code of the phrase "unless otherwise agreed", or words of similar import, does not imply that the effect of other provisions may not be varied by agreement under this section.
History:
Laws 2005, ch. 144, § 16.
OFFICIAL COMMENTS
UCC Official Comments by ALI & the NCCUSL. Reproduced with permission of the PEB for the UCC. All rights reserved.
Source.
— Former Sections 1-102(3)-(4) and 1-204(1) [55-1-102(3)-(4) and [55-1-204(1) NMSA 1978].
Changes.
— This section combines the rules from Subsections (3) and (4) of former Section 1-102 [55-1-102 NMSA 1978] and Subsection (1) of former Section 1-204 [55-1-204 NMSA 1978]. No substantive changes are made.
1. Subsection (a) states affirmatively at the outset that freedom of contract is a principle of the Uniform Commercial Code: "the effect" of its provisions may be varied by "agreement." The meaning of the statute itself must be found in its text, including its definitions, and in appropriate extrinsic aids; it cannot be varied by agreement. But the Uniform Commercial Code seeks to avoid the type of interference with evolutionary growth found in pre-Code cases such as
Manhattan Co. v. Morgan
, 242 N.Y. 38, 150 N.E. 594 (1926). Thus, private parties cannot make an instrument negotiable within the meaning of Article 3 except as provided in Section 3-104 [55-3-104 NMSA 1978]; nor can they change the meaning of such terms as "bona fide purchaser," "holder in due course," or "due negotiation," as used in the Uniform Commercial Code. But an agreement can change the legal consequences that would otherwise flow from the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. "Agreement" here includes the effect given to course of dealing, usage of trade and course of performance by Sections 1-201 [55-1-201 NMSA 1978] and 1-303 [55-1-303 NMSA 1978]; the effect of an agreement on the rights of third parties is left to specific provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code and to supplementary principles applicable under Section 1-103 [55-1-103 NMSA 1978]. The rights of third parties under Section 9-317 [55-9-317 NMSA 1978] when a security interest is unperfected, for example, cannot be destroyed by a clause in the security agreement.
This principle of freedom of contract is subject to specific exceptions found elsewhere in the Uniform Commercial Code and to the general exception stated here. The specific exceptions vary in explicitness: the statute of frauds found in Section 2-201, for example, does not explicitly preclude oral waiver of the requirement of a writing, but a fair reading denies enforcement to such a waiver as part of the "contract" made unenforceable; Section 9-602 [55-9-602 NMSA 1978], on the other hand, is a quite explicit limitation on freedom of contract. Under the exception for "the obligations of good faith, diligence, reasonableness and care prescribed by [the Uniform Commercial Code]," provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code prescribing such obligations are not to be disclaimed. However, the section also recognizes the prevailing practice of having agreements set forth standards by which due diligence is measured and explicitly provides that, in the absence of a showing that the standards manifestly are unreasonable, the agreement controls. In this connection, Section 1-303 [55-1-303 NMSA 1978] incorporating into the agreement prior course of dealing and usages of trade is of particular importance.
Subsection (b) also recognizes that nothing is stronger evidence of a reasonable time than the fixing of such time by a fair agreement between the parties. However, provision is made for disregarding a clause which whether by inadvertence or overreaching fixes a time so unreasonable that it amounts to eliminating all remedy under the contract. The parties are not required to fix the most reasonable time but may fix any time which is not obviously unfair as judged by the time of contracting.
2. An agreement that varies the effect of provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code may do so by stating the rules that will govern in lieu of the provisions varied. Alternatively, the parties may vary the effect of such provisions by stating that their relationship will be governed by recognized bodies of rules or principles applicable to commercial transactions. Such bodies of rules or principles may include, for example, those that are promulgated by intergovernmental authorities such as UNCITRAL or Unidroit (
see, e.g.
, Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts), or non-legal codes such as trade codes.
3. Subsection (c) is intended to make it clear that, as a matter of drafting, phrases such as "unless otherwise agreed" have been used to avoid controversy as to whether the subject matter of a particular section does or does not fall within the exceptions to Subsection (b), but absence of such words contains no negative implication since under Subsection (b) the general and residual rule is that the effect of all provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code may be varied by agreement.
ANNOTATIONS
Effective dates.
— Laws 2005, ch. 144, § 115 made Laws 2005, ch. 144, § 16 effective January 1, 2006.
Compiler's notes.
— This section replaced Subsections (3) and (4) of former 55-1-102 and Subsection (1) of former 55-1-204 NMSA 1978.
The UCC permits parties to override UCC provisions by agreement.
— Where plaintiff bank filed a complaint for foreclosure, alleging that defendant had defaulted on a "no document" loan taken out in 2003, approval of which depended on whether defendant's equity and credit score met certain guidelines, and where defendant argued that the district court's failure to credit a 2011 partial payment submitted by defendant to the bank resulted in an erroneous application of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), claiming further that regardless of whether the bank rejected the "tender," the UCC required the bank to discharge the tendered portion of the debt, reduce the balance of the debt, and stop accrual of interest on the debt, the district court did not err in concluding that defendant was not entitled to credit for the payment, because 55-1-302(b) NMSA 1978, directs that the parties, by agreement, may determine standards by which the performance of those obligations is to be measured if those standards are not manifestly unreasonable, and in this case, the 2003 loan agreement permitted the bank to reject partial payments.
Wells Fargo v. Graham
, 2023-NMCA-023.