Also known as: goods · merchandise
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A commodity or article of commerce offered or sold in trade.
A foreign company places merx into the national distribution network without directing any shipments to a particular state. Mason McCarthy receives defective merx in his home forum and sues the manufacturer there. The court dismisses for lack of personal jurisdiction because the company never targeted the forum state specifically.
Megan Moore orally promises to pay a broker if the broker induces a seller to transfer merx located on Blackacre. The broker performs but Moore refuses to pay. The court holds the promise is not within the statute of frauds because it concerns a commission rather than an interest in land itself.
Marathon Logistics contracts to sell merx but the buyer repudiates before identification. The seller elects to stop any bailee from delivering the still-unidentified merx. The buyer later claims the goods, but the seller's action under the code prevents release.
A state sells merx it owns to local buyers but requires them to process the goods inside the state before any out-of-state shipment. Mirage Hotels purchases the merx and challenges the restriction. The court invalidates the downstream condition as an improper burden on interstate commerce.
Metro Bank contracts to buy identified merx but the seller fails to deliver. The bank sues and obtains a court order for replevin of the goods. The seller's refusal to release the merx is overcome by the statutory remedy.
Musa Mensah owns merx located inside the forum state. A plaintiff serves process on the merx itself to enforce a claim against it. The court recognizes the proceeding as one in rem that binds only the property within the state's borders.
In February 1866, J.H. Mitchell obtained a judgment in an Oregon circuit court against Neff for less than $300 in an action for attorney services. At that time, Neff resided outside Oregon, received no personal service of process, and made no appearance in the case. The judgment was entered by default following constructive service by publication as authorized by the Oregon Code for non-resident defendants possessing property within the state. The Oregon Code also provided for attachment of a non-resident's property in money actions. No such attachment occurred with respect to the land at issue. Instead, after the judgment, an execution issued, leading to a levy on the land and its sale at a sheriff's auction. Pennoyer purchased the property at that sale and received a sheriff's deed. Separately, in 1866, the United States issued a patent to Neff for the same tract of land under the Donation Law of Oregon, which Neff valued at $15,000. Neff then brought suit against Pennoyer in the circuit court to recover possession of the premises based on his patent title. The lower court held the Oregon judgment invalid because of deficiencies in the affidavits used to obtain the publication order and to prove publication occurred. The Supreme Court of the United States granted review to consider the validity of the state court judgment and the resulting sheriff's sale.
View caseThe term refers to articles of commerce that qualify as goods under property law and are distinct from interests in land.
Mere placement into national commerce without purposeful targeting of the forum state is insufficient to support personal jurisdiction over a foreign seller of the merx.
A buyer may replevy merx identified to the contract when the seller fails to deliver and cover is not reasonably available.
…places of business in several states, other than Washington, at which its manufacturing is carried on and from which its merchandise is distributed interstate through several sales units or branches located outside the State of Washington. Appellant has no office in Washington and makes no contracts either for sale or…