Uniformity of Law: Cases From Other Jurisdictions Can Make YOUR Case

Although it is clear from the name itself—i.e.—the Uniform Commercial Code, the drafters of the Code explicitly stated the policy of uniformity in Section 1-103(a)(3):

(a)  [The Uniform Commercial Code] must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are:

(1)  to simplify, clarify and modernize the law governing commercial transactions;

(2)  to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and

(3)  to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.

Traditionally, courts are reluctant and often unwilling to consider the case law from other jurisdictions.  However, in furtherance of the uniformity of law policy of the Uniform Commercial Code, courts regularly look to the law of other jurisdictions in determining disputes before the court.  Attorneys who understand and actively employ this policy, have an arsenal of cases from all jurisdictions which can be used to support a theory or argument presented to the court.  This is obviously a great advantage over the attorney who is singularly focused on the law of his or her jurisdiction.

            In the case of In re Hispanic American Television Co., Inc. 113 B.R. 453 (Bankr.) N.D. Ill. 1990),11 UCC Rep Serv 2d),  the legal issue before the court was the question of whether or not the contract between Motorweek Productions and Hispanic American Television Co., designated as a lease, was in fact a lease or a security agreement.  If the contract was in fact a true lease, Motorweek, as lessor, would be entitled to repossess the equipment as provided for in the lease.  If on the other hand, the contract was deemed to be a security agreement, the equipment would become property of the Debtor’s estate.  Under the purported lease, Hispanic American Television Co. was required to make monthly payments of $55,624.97 over a five year term.  At the time of default, Hispanic American Television Co. owed Motorweek $525,000.

            The controlling law at the time of the case was Section 1-201(37), which contained the definition of “Security interest” and addressed the specific question of whether or not a lease is in fact a lease or a lease intended as security.  The latter question is now specifically addressed in Section 1-203, and the definition of “Security interest” is now contained in Section 1-201(35).

            The case is particularly interesting for two reasons.  First, although the Court made a determination that the parties to the contract did in fact intend the contract to be a true lease; the Court nevertheless found that the contract between the parties was in fact a security agreement. Of course, the law determines the answer to the legal question of whether a transaction is a true lease or a security agreement, but the determination that the parties did in fact intend a lease is significant.  The characterization of the transaction however, must also be viewed outside the context of the parties to the agreement.  In addition to the controlling law, the agreement must be viewed in the context of the interests of other creditors of the Debtor who have a very high stake in the determination of the nature of the agreement.  As noted earlier, if the contract is a true lease, Motorweek can retake its equipment; if not, the equipment becomes part of the Debtor’s estate and hence available to other creditors.

            The second reason that the case was particularly interesting is that the contract contained a choice of law provision which stated that the law of New York was to govern the transaction.  This certainly would include the case law of New York. Notwithstanding this provision however, the court stated:

Section 1-201(37) of the U.C.C. is identical in New York and Illinois.  The case law from both states is relevant on the issue of distinguishing a “true lease” from a security agreement.  In Re Hispanic Television Co., Inc. at 456

The court went on to state:

Further, given the uniformity purpose of the UCC, decisions from other states which have adopted its standard provisions are also relevant.  Id at 456-457

            There are many cases which support these statements from In Re Hispanic Television Co., Inc..  They present a great arsenal for the attorney who utilizes their potential impact on his or her case.