Seriously how can anyone not understand this? We know what equity means we know it means in commerce
And who says equity, in the context of courts of equity and law, means "in commerce"? Thanks.
we know we have adapted maritime commercial law at the state level....ucc not maritime law? Commerce only regulated to land then? Think commercial law is law of the land? Most commerce does not happen on "vessels" at sea? Don't need to be party to a contract to be in equity then?
Maritime law is maritime law, and according to the constitution, there is no such thing as state maritime law. When state courts hear maritime cases, they have to apply federal maritime law. That's the end of it. The UCC is only enacted at the state level, and since maritime law is solely a body of federal law, the UCC is not "maritime law."
The regulation of commerce is not maritime law. Admiralty is a set of very specific thing water-centric things, not general commercial law, which is what you're trying to assert here.
Again, this is confusion. The fact that you're shipping something on a vessel does not mean you automatically have a maritime case. If your vessel crashed, then yes, perhaps you would have some rights under admiralty law. Otherwise, you've got nothing, and the transaction is governed by other bodies of law. So that's the norm.
Indeed, in the kind of international situations you're talking about--big container ships crossing the oceans--a lot of transactions are actually governed by a UN Convention because that's the default rule. So in the transactions you're bringing up, United States commercial law often isn't even applicable or enforceable in United States courts against international parties.
Fed act does not say "to establish an elastic currency" and "to provide.....Federal reserve banks." And "to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper" then?
Not in dispute, just not meaningful.
Then we jump on into commercial paper in that thar UCC that talks about all kinds of commercial paper including notes, bills of exchange, currency, assigns it's own def of "money", and specificlly mentions the federal reserve in the "negotiable instruments" section.........to say they are non-negotiable instruments as per this section unless the Board of Governors says this or that in conflict with the section.......
The statute doesn't say they're non-negotiable instruments unless the Fed says otherwise. It says Fed regulations on commercial instruments having nothing to do with Federal Reserve Notes may supersede some parts of the article.
Then in the "preamble" LOL it starts by saying 1-103 (b) "Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code], the principles of law and equity,
including the
law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions"..........
and this tokeprep can pretend he was not the one who drew the civil boundary and continues to play ignorant as to what lies on either side?
Legal cases can be Law, Equity or Maritime..........Equity and Maritime require a contract. Law and Maritime can carry Criminal Actions and Equity can't. Law is just Law can be case Law and the highest is Constitutional Law.
So what is legal at Equity and Maritime according to their contracts are merely legal, not lawful. Equity and Maritime have "laws" that pertain to the contracts only....laws pertaining to the contract sometimes just called law....which is different from Law.
Again, you just don't understand what this is supposed to mean. When they say "the law relative to capacity to contract," they mean the existing state law on capacity to contract. How old do you have to be? Can a retarded person sign a contract? Can a drunk person sign a contract? Can parents sign contracts for their children? The UCC doesn't answer these kinds of questions about who can make contracts. This provision leaves that to existing state law, unless it's clear the UCC is supposed to displace something.
I never drew anything called "the civil boundary." You misunderstood something I said. Legal cases are legal cases. Period. They are not "law, equity, or maritime." They are legal cases. A contract may or may not be involved; if it's a criminal matter, then state or federal criminal law is applicable. None of it has anything to do with law and equity.
You just told us that equity can't carry criminal actions. How do federal district courts deal with criminal actions, then? They're equity courts, according to you.
