IN many ways Article Three of the Uniform Commercial Code (Code) is like a huge machine assembled by a mad inventor and comprised of assorted sprockets, gears, levers, pulleys, and belts. Few thoroughly understand all of the jobs which this machine is to perform; and a search through the reported cases suggests that the machine is either performing so efficiently that it commits no mistakes worth litigating or it is not performing at all. In their study of the intricacies of Article Three, law students resemble persons climbing about on the machine-pulling its levers, testing its belts and pulleys, and trying the motor. At first they are baffled by it; then they are intrigued by the complementary relationships among the various working parts which become apparent only upon close examination. They see that the inventor was far from mad, yet they are frustrated because they cannot see the machine in action to find out whether the gears and belts, which look as if they might not function properly, can, in fact, perform as planned. The discussion that follows will point out some places where the design looks defective. None of my complaints are fundamental; each is petty at least in the sense that no cases have yet manifested difficulty in the operation of the machine. Indeed, the words that follow may be simply one more person's pulling on the levers and poking at the innards of the machine.
White, James J. "Some Petty Complaints about Article Three." Mich. L. Rev. 65, no. 7 (1967): 1315-40.