General definitions
Source:
Section 71.2010 — General definitions, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors071.html
.
Notes of Decisions
An option price that was 10 percent of the value of the property at the time the option was to be exercised was nominal consideration. Peco, Inc. v. Hartbauer Tool & Die Co., 262 Or 573, 500 P2d 708 (1972)
The test for “nominal consideration” is a comparison of the option price with the market value of the property at the time the option is to be exercised. Peco, Inc. v. Hartbauer Tool & Die Co., 262 Or 573, 500 P2d 708 (1972)
Where a signed writing is attached to an unsigned writing, the signature on the one is adequate for the other. Pyle v. Wolf Corp., 354 F Supp 346 (1972)
The fact that notice of a nonpossessory lien had been filed did not constitute knowledge thereof with respect to one who did not have actual knowledge. Balzer Mach. Co. v. Klineline Sand & Gravel Co., 271 Or 596, 533 P2d 321 (1975)
If a party fails to make an inquiry for the purpose of remaining ignorant of facts which he believes or fears would disclose a defect in the transaction, he may be found to have acted in bad faith. Community Bank v. Ell, 278 Or 417, 564 P2d 685 (1977)
A creditor cannot claim a perfected security interest in collateral unless it has an enforceable security agreement with the debtor which describes the collateral to be charged with the security interest. Community Bank v. Jones, 278 Or 647, 566 P2d 470 (1977)
Where computer lease provided that rental payments accelerated on default, that lessee bore risk of loss and responsibility for insurance and taxes, and where computer was selected by and purchased specifically for lessee, lease was “intended for security.” All-States Leasing v. Ochs, 42 Or App 319, 600 P2d 899 (1979)
Terms of contract making limited warranty and expressly disclaiming all other express or implied warranties was not “conspicuous” within meaning of this section. Seibel v. Layne & Bowler, Inc., 56 Or App 387, 641 P2d 668 (1982), Sup Ct review denied
Plaintiffs were not “buyers in the ordinary course of business” where they received notice of assignment of account to secured party but relied on principal of assignor of the account for instructions as to payment. Quinn v. Scheu, 66 Or App 644, 675 P2d 1078 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Where disclaimer is in large, bold face print, entirely in capital letters and labeled a disclaimer, it is conspicuous under this section. Agristor Credit Corp. v. Schmidlin, 601 F Supp 1307 (1985)
Disclaimer in bolded capital letters on face of one page contract was conspicuous. Duyck v. Northwest Chemical Corp., 94 Or App 111, 764 P2d 943 (1988), Sup Ct review denied
Where contract used several sizes of print and other attention diverting devices, disclaimer was inconspicuous. Anderson v. Ashland Rental, Inc., 122 Or App 508, 858 P2d 470 (1993)
Inability to obtain certificate of title at time of purchasing automobile did not put buyer on notice and disqualify buyer as purchaser in ordinary course of business. Thorn v. Adams, 125 Or App 257, 865 P2d 417 (1993)
Fact that first disclaimer in document was inconspicuous did not render second disclaimer inconspicuous. Northwest Pine Products v. Cummins Northwest, Inc., 126 Or App 219, 868 P2d 21 (1994)
Law Review Citations
26 WLR 348 (1990); 75 OLR 493 (1996)