KANSAS OFFICE of
  REVISOR of STATUTES

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov


 
   

 




84-1-105. Severability. If any provision or clause of the uniform commercial code or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the uniform commercial code which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of the uniform commercial code are severable.

History: L. 2007, ch. 89, § 5; July 1, 2008.

KANSAS COMMENT, 1996

1. This section establishes choice of law rules when a transaction bears "a reasonable relation" to the state of Kansas as well as to another state. Under subsection (1), the parties are permitted to specify the state whose laws will govern a particular contract. If the parties do not so specify, the Kansas Code applies when a transaction bears "an appropriate relation" to the state of Kansas. As to what constitutes "an appropriate relation," the courts will have to say. See Official Comments 2 and 3 to this section for some guidance. However, since the Code is law in all but one state (and even in that state, Louisiana, part of the Code is law), the statutes in the various states will usually be identical or nearly identical, and conflict of laws problems should be less serious than in pre-Code days.

2. Subsection (2) lists seven provisions under which the parties' ability to specify the applicable law is limited. This subsection has been amended several times in recent years to reflect additions and revisions to the Code.

3. Cases applying this section, or applying Kansas law via this section, include Farmers State Bank v. Production Credit Ass'n, 243 K. 87, 755 P.2d 518 (1988); Benedictine College, Inc. v. Century Office Prod., Inc., 853 F. Supp. 1315 (D. Kan. 1994); National Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Taylor, 225 K. 58, 587 P.2d 870 (1978); Ellsworth v. Worthey, 612 S.W.2d 396 (Mo. App. 1981). See also Mark Twain Kansas City Bank v. Cates, 248 K. 700, 810 P.2d 1154 (1991) (applying 84-1-105 by analogy to mortgage).

Revisor's Note:

Former section 84-1-105 was repealed by L. 2007, ch. 89, § 49 and the number reassigned to the current text.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"Secured Transactions in Kansas: The New Look," J. Eugene Balloun, 5 W.L.J. 192, 193 (1966).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Secured Transactions," J. Eugene Balloun, 16 K.L.R. 437, 441 (1968).

"Contracts in Conflict of Laws," J. Taylor Neuschwander, 12 W.L.J. 317, 324 (1973).

"Changes in Article Nine of the Kansas Commercial Code," Alan Tipton, 15 W.L.J. 212, 221, 222 (1976).

"Choice-of-Laws: Should Kansas Abandon Lex Loci Delicti?", Martin R. Ufford, 16 W.L.J. 302, 318, 319, 322 (1977).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Foreign default judgment order dismissed on motion; service not complete; jurisdiction not acquired. National Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Taylor, 225 Kan. 58, 60, 61, 587 P.2d 870.

2. Cited; applicability of Kansas law on unauthorized removal from state and sale of secured collateral examined. Farmers State Bank v. Production Cred. Ass'n of St. Cloud, 243 Kan. 87, 96, 755 P.2d 518 (1988).

3. Contract provided that Massachusetts law governed contract claims of Kansas purchaser from Massachusetts seller; Kansas law governed tort claims as that was where injury was suffered. Ritchie Enterprises v. Honeywell Bull, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 1041, 1046 (1990).

4. Public policy herein applies to loan and mortgage executed in Missouri on land located in Kansas. Mark Twain Kansas City Bank v. Cates, 248 Kan. 700, 707, 810 P.2d 1154 (1991).

5. Guaranty choice of law provision designating Missouri law as controlling upheld although guarantor and debtor were Kansas residents. United Missouri Bank v. Gagel, 815 F. Supp. 387, 388, 391 (1993).

6. Whether Missouri had reasonable relationship to transaction allowing parties agreement to apply Missouri law to stand examined. Benedictine College v. Century Office Products, 853 F. Supp. 1315, 1323 (1994).


 



This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov