Although we ask whether Article 2 should be re-examined, it is not our only question. A second question posed is: What are the sources to which one should look in order to discover whether there is a strong enough need to justify a revision? In addition to mentioning sources, we offer a few examples illustrative of the fruits which these sources can produce. By doing so, we hope to spur additional interest because, if discussion of a new Article 2 is to begin, the sooner it begins the better. Revisions take time. Six years can pass from the time a decision is made to revise to the submission of a revision for state-by-state adoption, after which a decade may elapse before widespread adoption occurs and the revision becomes effective. Thus, in 1986, we should plan for the needs of A.D. 2000, even if we only see the future through a glass darkly.
David Frisch & F. Leary, Jr., Is Revision Due for Article 2?, 31 Vill. L. Rev. 399 (1986).