1-302. Afwijking bij overeenkomst.

Primaire tabbladen

(a) Tenzij anders bepaald in subsectie (b) of elders in [de Uniform Commercial Code], kan het effect van bepalingen van [de Uniform Commercial Code] bij overeenkomst worden gewijzigd .

(b) De verplichtingen van goede trouw , zorgvuldigheid, redelijkheid en zorgvuldigheid voorgeschreven door [de Uniform Commercial Code] mogen niet bij overeenkomst worden afgewezen . Partijen kunnen in onderling overleg bepalen aan welke normen de nakoming van die verplichtingen moet worden gemeten, indien die normen niet kennelijk onredelijk zijn. Wanneer [de Uniform Commercial Code] vereist dat binnen een redelijke termijn wordt gehandeld, kan in overleg een termijn worden vastgesteld die niet kennelijk onredelijk is .

(c) De aanwezigheid in sommige bepalingen van [de Uniform Commercial Code] van de zinsnede “tenzij anders is overeengekomen”, of woorden van soortgelijke strekking, betekent niet dat het effect van andere bepalingen niet bij overeenkomst mag worden gewijzigd krachtens deze sectie.

(Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 637, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1Apr. 27, 2013, D.C. Law 19-299, § 2, 60 DCR 2634.)

Prior Codifications

2001 Ed., §§ 28:1-102(3), (4), and 28:1-204(1).

Section References

This section is referenced in § 28:2A-518§ 28:2A-527§ 28:2A-528§ 28:4A-204, and § 28:5-103.

Uniform Commercial Code Comment

Source: Former Sections 1-102(3)-(4) and 1-204(1).

Changes: This section combines the rules from subsections (3) and (4) of former Section 1-102 and subsection (1) of former Section 1-204. 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 asManhattan 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; 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 and 1-303; 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. The rights of third parties under Section 9-317 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, 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 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.