Sinka v. Northern Commercial Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because “the transaction was a typical sale of goods . . . the sale necessarily was subject to the [UCC]” (footnote omitted)
• holding that the Uniform Commercial Code provides \a comprehensive scheme for recovery of damages\ for certain types of injuries
• holding that the Uniform Commercial Code provides “a comprehensive scheme for recovery of damages” for certain types of injuries
• holding that because “the transaction was a 12 typical sale of goods . . . the sale necessarily was subject to the [UCC]” (footnote 13 omitted)
• holding UCC statute of limitations applicable to breach of warranty action for personal injuries between parties in privity; no subsequent Alaska decision involving parties not in privity
• sale of pearl kerosene was the sale of goods under the UCC

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).