Review of NORTH CAROLINA SECURITY INTERESTS by Richard A. Lord and Charles C. Lewis

Covington, I. Boyce

English

Campbell University Law School

Campbell Law ReviewVolume 8Issue 2 Spring 1986 Article 9January 1986North Carolina Security InterestsI. Boyce CovingtonFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clrThis Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted forinclusion in Campbell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law.Recommended CitationI. Boyce Covington, North Carolina Security Interests, 8 Campbell L. Rev. 385 (1986).BOOK REVIEWNORTH CAROLINA SECURITY INTERESTS. Richard A. Lordand Charles C. Lewis. The Michie Company, Charlottesville, Vir-ginia. 1985. Pp. 437.The Uniform Commercial Code in general and Article 9 inparticular can be and usually are intimidating to students and at-torneys. The meaning and purpose of Article 9's language is some-times difficult to fathom and there is always the concern that thewrong provision is being applied or that some relevant portion ofthe statute is being overlooked. In short, those new to Article 9need guidance in its use.Professors Lord and Lewis' have written a book which is help-ful to law students and to North Carolina practitioners in severalimportant ways. First, they provide a concise and clear analysis ofthe language of the statute. Their method is to describe the com-mercial context for which the statute is designed and then to ex-plain its operation within that context. Analyzing the statutorylanguage in light of the task it was written to accomplish is by farthe best way to form an understanding of Article 9 and this book issuccessful in its use of this method. They are comprehensive intheir discussion of Article 9; each of its provisions is presented andits application explained. The second major contribution of thiswork is that it analyzes and discusses the leading North Carolinacases interpreting Article 9. Again, Lord and Lewis are comprehen-sive and all of the significant authority is included. The cases arethoroughly discussed and the authors do not hesitate to state theirdisagreement with the analysis or result of a case.A third, and perhaps the greatest, contribution of this work isits extensive discussion of the impact of the Bankruptcy Code 2 onsecured transactions. Over one-fourth of the text is devoted to aconsideration of the Bankruptcy Code and its effect on the creditorwith personal property security. Here, also, the language of the1. Richard A. Lord is Associate Dean and a Professor and Charles C. Lewis isan Associate Professor at Campbell University School of Law.2. 11 U.S.C. § I et. seq.1Covington: North Carolina Security InterestsPublished by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law, 1986CAMPBELL LAW REVIEWstatute, this time the Bankruptcy Code, is explained in contextand the leading cases, here the decisions of the bankruptcy courtssitting in North Carolina, are presented and analyzed. For thosewho without prior knowledge or experience must deal with thecomplexities of Article 9 and the Bankruptcy Code this material isboth helpful and reassuring.At various places throughout the book the authors state theirpreference for a particular interpretation of statutory language ortheir criticism of the result in a given case. It is here that the bookis at its weakest for the authors state their opinion as to the pre-ferred reading or result without any extended consideration ofcompeting policies or rationale and without detailed explanation orjustification of their own preference. 3 This is not to suggest thatthe opinions expressed are often, if ever, wrong but the force oftheir recommendations is blunted by the absence of any detailedexplanation or supporting arguments.In sum, this is a valuable work. It is of particular importanceto those new to Article 9 and to bankruptcy law whose time is lim-ited and who need a clear explanation of the statute. It is alsohelpful to those who are researching North Carolina law. To thosewho have experience in these areas it is of less importance buteven the most experienced practitioner will find its discussion ofthe statutes and the North Carolina cases useful.I. Boyce Covington*3. For example, on pages 19-21 the authors discuss Evans v. Everette, 279N.C. 352, 183 S.E.2d 109 (1971) and conclude by recommending that it be over-ruled or limited "at the earliest opportunity." There is no discussion of the rea-soning underlying the recommendation and without some persuasive argumentthat the result debases the language or confounds the purposes of the statute it isdifficult to afford it any weight.* Professor, Wake Forest University School of Law.386 [Vol. 8:3852Campbell Law Review, Vol. 8, Iss. 2 [1986], Art. 9http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr/vol8/iss2/9

North Carolina Security Interests

bepress Legal Repository

https://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&amp;context=clr

North Carolina Security Interests

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Campbell University Law School

bepress Legal Repository