Paradox of Article 9

Appear as the acclaimed legal writers at American Law Institute [ALI] appear to
be attempting to supplant hundreds of years of legal J uris prudence. Why are such
actions being undertaking? Maybe one should inquire as to who are the parties
behind the curtain. This writer over the years failed not to forget the words of wise
men that if sex or humor is involved little things are not forgotten. As to Article 9
and her sister articles, no sex or humor exist and it is a big deal as to application of
law.
Within Carpenter v. Longan 83 U.S. 271 (1872) are found these words of the court:
The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as
essential, the latter as an incident.
To dissect U.C.C. - ARTICLE 9 - SECURED TRANSACTIONS (2010) , 9-320.
BUYER OF GOODS provides a dissecting entry point.
Subsection a reads:
9-320. BUYER OF GOODS.
(a) [Buyer in ordinary course of business.]
Except as otherwise provided in subsection (e), a buyer
in ordinary course of business, other than a person
buying farm products from a person engaged in farming
operations, takes free of a security interest created by the
buyer's seller, even if the security interest is perfected
and the buyer knows of its existence.
It becomes clear that a portion of Article 9 was written to address only goods
(security securing, collateral securing the note, mortgage securing the note.) As
the rewrite of the UCC is codified into statutes, one has to inquire does Carpenter
v. Logan provide precedential law to modern day, this writer has to answer by
Yes, the current statutes vary from statutes of the 1872 opinion but the legal
foundation remains the same. Applying only validity of the collaterals transfer it
becomes apparent that concern about who owns the overhead legal obligation has
become second place to the underlying collateral position. You can bet your sack
time that it is more profitable to have two items for sale than one, one being the
note the other being the collateral. In todays market, there are makers and shakers
where being called overwrites or underwriters retrieve a transactional fee not
associated with selling the obligation or the security.
Delving back into the words of Article 9; takes free of a security interest created
by the buyer's seller, Of course, purchase is dependent upon being in the course
of ordinary business. Yeppers, you have been sucked into the infernal word game
of ordinary business. Before it can be determined if ordinary course of business
applies, one has to inquire if all conditions precedent have been accommodated to
allow the seller to have rights to sale the collateral. In every corner of the world
you will find a sucker born that will believe anything with belief that a profit
returns. Another factor applies as to the seller who wishes to sale the financial
obligation, has an alternate value [mortgage] to the obligation residing in an
electronic bit bucket named to another party violated conditions precedent and
applying another portion of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 3-3203(d)
prohibit the negotiation of the note. How in the hell did we get back to the note and
forget about the mortgage, easy, as issue(s) affect the note, there is no holder in
due course who has rights to the note or mortgage. Truly one can hold and scream
and holler they are the holder of the note but such screaming and hollering make
them a party with rights to enforce the note or mortgage.
To not forget the note and mortgage, forget not the poke and stroke, the he and she
thing(s) [was pun intended?]. Hopefully, will not progress into articles beyond 3 &
9, bulk transfer(s) might entail 69, yep, typo To not forget, one must spend the
time to learn.