Opinion ID: 2105618
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: UCC Article 2

Text: Article 2 of the UCC applies to sales that involve a transaction in goods. Tex. Bus. & COM.CODE § 2.102. The UCC defines a good as all things ... which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities ... and things in action. Tex. Bus. & COM.CODE § 2.105(a). If the UCC applies to a transaction, the parties can limit or exclude consequential damages arising from the transaction unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable. Tex. Bus. & COM.CODE § 2.719(c). In cases involving consumer goods, a limitation on consequential damages for personal injury is prima facie unconscionable, and the defendant must rebut this prima facie showing with evidence that the limitation is not unconscionable. Tex. Bus. & Com.Code § 2.719(c). But, the UCC does not govern a transaction if applying the UCC would impair or repeal any statute regulating sales to consumers, farmers or other specified classes of buyers. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.102. Courts have interpreted their states' equivalents to Texas' section 2.102 to mean that article 2 does not apply if it supersedes or weakens special statutes regulating sales to a specified class of buyers. See, e.g., Olson v. Molacek Bros., 341 N.W.2d 375, 378 (N.D.1983); Pugh v. Stratton, 22 Utah 2d 190, 450 P.2d 463, 465 (1969). However, article 2 may supplement a specific regulatory statute if it does not conflict with the statute and both article 2 and the statute can be given full effect. See Farmers Livestock Exchange, Inc. v. Ulmer, 393 N.W.2d 65, 68 (N.D. 1986); cf. Tex. Gov't Code § 311.026(a). If article 2 conflicts with a regulatory statute, the regulatory statute prevails, and thus the regulated transaction does not fall within article 2's scope. See Hughes v. Collegedale Distributors, 355 So.2d 79, 81 (Miss.1978); Gimbel v. Kuntz, 286 N.W.2d 501, 508 (N.D.1979).