(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, when a transaction bears a reasonable relation to this State and also to another state or nation, the parties may agree that the law either of this State or of such other state or nation shall govern their rights and duties.
(b) In the absence of an agreement effective under subsection (a), and except as provided in subsection (c), the Uniform Commercial Code applies to transactions bearing an appropriate relation to this State.
(c) If one of the following provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code specifies the applicable law, that provision governs and a contrary agreement is effective only to the extent permitted by law so specified:
(1) Section 36-2-402;
(2) Sections 36-2A-105 and 36-2A-106;
(3) Section 36-4-102;
(4) Section 36-4A-507;
(5) Section 36-5-116;
(6) Section 36-8-110;
(7) Sections 36-9-301 through 36-9-307.
HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 10.1-105; 1966 (54) 2716; 1988 Act No. 494, Section 1; 1996 Act No. 221, Section 2; 2001 Act No. 67, Section 13; former 1976 Code Section 36-1-105; 2014 Act No. 213 (S.343), Section 1, eff October 1, 2014.
OFFICIAL COMMENT
Source: Former Section 1-105.
Changes from former law: This section is substantively identical to former Section 1-105. Changes in language are stylistic only.
1. Subsection (a) states affirmatively the right of the parties to a multi-state transaction or a transaction involving foreign trade to choose their own law. That right is subject to the firm rules stated in the sections listed in subsection (c), and is limited to jurisdictions to which the transaction bears a "reasonable relation." In general, the test of "reasonable relation" is similar to that laid down by the Supreme Court in Seeman v. Philadelphia Warehouse Co., 274 U.S. 403, 47 S.Ct. 626, 71 L.Ed. 1123 (1927). Ordinarily the law chosen must be that of a jurisdiction where a significant enough portion of the making or performance of the contract is to occur or occurs. But an agreement as to choice of law may sometimes take effect as a shorthand expression of the intent of the parties as to matters governed by their agreement, even though the transaction has no significant contact with the jurisdiction chosen.
2. Where there is no agreement as to the governing law, the Act is applicable to any transaction having an "appropriate" relation to any state which enacts it. Of course, the Act applies to any transaction which takes place in its entirety in a state which has enacted the Act. But the mere fact that suit is brought in a state does not make it appropriate to apply the substantive law of that state. Cases where a relation to the enacting state is not "appropriate" include, for example, those where the parties have clearly contracted on the basis of some other law, as where the law of the place of contracting and the law of the place of contemplated performance are the same and are contrary to the law under the Code.
3. Where a transaction has significant contacts with a state which has enacted the Act and also with other jurisdictions, the question what relation is "appropriate" is left to judicial decision. In deciding that question, the court is not strictly bound by precedents established in other contexts. Thus a conflict-of-laws decision refusing to apply a purely local statute or rule of law to a particular multi-state transaction may not be valid precedent for refusal to apply the Code in an analogous situation. Application of the Code in such circumstances may be justified by its comprehensiveness, by the policy of uniformity, and by the fact that it is in large part a reformulation and restatement of the law merchant and of the understanding of a business community which transcends state and even national boundaries. Compare Global Commerce Corp. v. Clark-Babbitt Industries, Inc., 239 F.2d 716, 719 (2d Cir. 1956). In particular, where a transaction is governed in large part by the Code, application of another law to some detail of performance because of an accident of geography may violate the commercial understanding of the parties.
4. Subsection (c) spells out essential limitations on the parties' right to choose the applicable law. Especially in Article 9 parties taking a security interest or asked to extend credit which may be subject to a security interest must have sure ways to find out whether and where to file and where to look for possible existing filings.
5. Sections 9-301 through 9-307 should be consulted as to the rules for perfection of security interests and agricultural liens and the effect of perfection and nonperfection and priority.
6. This section is subject to Section 1-102, which states the scope of Article 1. As that section indicates, the rules of Article 1, including this section, apply to a transaction to the extent that transaction is governed by one of the other Articles of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Editor's Note
"This act," referred to in this section, means Act No. 1965 of the 1966 Acts and Joint Resolutions, originally codified as Titles 10.1 to 10.10 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina 1962, and now codified as Title 36 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976.
2014 Act No. 213, Section 51, provides as follows:
"SECTION 51. This act becomes effective on October 1, 2014. It applies to transactions entered into and events occurring after that date."