Part I of this Article endeavors to put the sales law in perspective by emphasizing its role in the broader system of commercial law. Then, in Part II we focus on a particular example (the buyer's right to recover goods upon the seller's insolvency) to support our general observation that the revision reflects a fatal insensitivity to the need for article 2 to fit with other bodies of commercial codification. Part III demonstrates the revi~ion's failure to come to terms with the role of context and makes the argument that the drafters' shortsightedness is evidenced by the manner in which the drafters treat the symbiotic relationship between warranty and products liability law. In Part IV we make the case for care in data collection as a predicate to drafting. Finally, we conclude that the article 2 revision project may not, as currently realized, be worth the commercial law candle.
David Frisch & Peter A. Alces, Commercial Codification as Negotiation, 32 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 17 (1998).
Coauthored with Peter A. Alces