Uniform Parentage Act (2017)

UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT (2017) drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES at its ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-TWENTY-SIXTH YEAR SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA JULY 14 - JULY 20, 2017 WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Copyright © 2017 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS September 22, 2017 ABOUT ULC The Uniform Law Commission (ULC), also known as National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), now in its 126th year, provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law. ULC members must be lawyers, qualified to practice law. They are practicing lawyers, judges, legislators and legislative staff and law professors, who have been appointed by state governments as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to research, draft and promote enactment of uniform state laws in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical. • ULC strengthens the federal system by providing rules and procedures that are consistent from state to state but that also reflect the diverse experience of the states. • ULC statutes are representative of state experience, because the organization is made up of representatives from each state, appointed by state government. • ULC keeps state law up-to-date by addressing important and timely legal issues. • ULC’s efforts reduce the need for individuals and businesses to deal with different laws as they move and do business in different states. • ULC’s work facilitates economic development and provides a legal platform for foreign entities to deal with U.S. citizens and businesses. • Uniform Law Commissioners donate thousands of hours of their time and legal and drafting expertise every year as a public service, and receive no salary or compensation for their work. • ULC’s deliberative and uniquely open drafting process draws on the expertise of commissioners, but also utilizes input from legal experts, and advisors and observers representing the views of other legal organizations or interests that will be subject to the proposed laws. • ULC is a state-supported organization that represents true value for the states, providing services that most states could not otherwise afford or duplicate. UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT (2017) The Committee appointed by and representing the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in preparing this act consists of the following individuals: JAMIE PEDERSEN, Washington State Senate, 235 John A. Cherberg Bldg., P.O. Box 40643, Olympia, WA 98504-0643, Chair MELISSA HORTMAN, Minnesota House of Representatives, State Office Building, Room 237, 100 Dr. Rev. MLK Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155, Vice Chair MARY M. ACKERLY, 782 Bantam Rd., P.O. Box 815, Bantam, CT 06750-0815 BARBARA A. ATWOOD, University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, 1201 E. Speedway Blvd., P.O. Box 210176, Tucson, AZ 85721-0176 LESLEY E. COHEN, 2657 Windmill Pkwy., #415, Henderson, NV 89074-3384 BART M. DAVIS, 2638 Bellin Cir., Idaho Falls, ID 83402 GAIL HAGERTY, Burleigh County Court House, P.O. Box 1013, 514 E. Thayer Ave., Bismarck, ND 58502-1013 KAY P. KINDRED, University of Nevada Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law, 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy., Box 451003, Las Vegas, NV 89154-1003 DEBRA LEHRMANN, Supreme Court of Texas, Supreme Court Bldg., 201 W. 14th St., Room 104, Austin, TX 78701 CLAIRE LEVY, 789 Sherman St., Suite 300, Denver, CO 80203-3531 DAVID C. McBRIDE, 1000 King St., P.O. Box 391, Wilmington, DE 19899 HARRY TINDALL, 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1550, Houston, TX 77056-3081 COURTNEY G. JOSLIN, University of California Davis School of Law, 400 Mrak Hall Dr., Davis, CA 95616-5203, Reporter AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADVISORS STEVEN H. SNYDER, 11270 86th Ave. N., Maple Grove, MN 55369-4510, ABA Advisor MARY L. FELLOWS, P.O. Box 730, Grand Marais, MN 55406, ABA Section Advisor EX OFFICIO RICHARD T. CASSIDY, 1233 Shelburne Rd., Suite D5, South Burlington, VT 05403-7753, President WILLIAM W. BARRETT, 600 N. Emerson Ave., P.O. Box 405, Greenwood, IN 46142, Division Chair EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LIZA KARSAI, 111 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 1010, Chicago, IL 60602, Executive Director Copies of this act may be obtained from: NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS 111 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 1010 Chicago, Illinois 60602 312/450-6600 www.uniformlaws.org UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT (2017) TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFATORY NOTE. 1 [ARTICLE] 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE. . 4 SECTION 102. DEFINITIONS. . 4 SECTION 103. SCOPE. . 7 SECTION 104. AUTHORIZED COURT. . 8 SECTION 105. APPLICABLE LAW. . 8 SECTION 106. DATA PRIVACY. . 8 SECTION 107. ESTABLISHMENT OF MATERNITY AND PATERNITY. . 9 [ARTICLE] 2 PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP SECTION 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP. . 9 SECTION 202. NO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON MARITAL STATUS OF PARENT. . 10 SECTION 203. CONSEQUENCES OF ESTABLISHING PARENTAGE. 11 SECTION 204. PRESUMPTION OF PARENTAGE. . 11 [ARTICLE] 3 VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PARENTAGE SECTION 301. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PARENTAGE. . 17 SECTION 302. EXECUTION OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PARENTAGE. . 17 SECTION 303. DENIAL OF PARENTAGE. . 19 SECTION 304. RULES FOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR DENIAL OF PARENTAGE. . 19 SECTION 305. EFFECT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR DENIAL OF PARENTAGE. . 20 SECTION 306. NO FILING FEE. . 20 SECTION 307. RATIFICATION BARRED. . 20 SECTION 308. PROCEDURE FOR RESCISSION. . 21 SECTION 309. CHALLENGE AFTER EXPIRATION OF PERIOD FOR RESCISSION. . 21 SECTION 310. PROCEDURE FOR CHALLENGE BY SIGNATORY. . 22 SECTION 311. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT. . 23 SECTION 312. FORMS FOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DENIAL OF PARENTAGE. . 24 SECTION 313. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. . 24 [SECTION 314. ADOPTION OF RULES.] . 24 [ARTICLE] 4 REGISTRY OF PATERNITY [PART] 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRY. . 25 SECTION 402. REGISTRATION FOR NOTIFICATION. 25 SECTION 403. NOTICE OF PROCEEDING. 26 SECTION 404. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS: CHILD UNDER ONE YEAR OF AGE. . 26 SECTION 405. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS: CHILD AT LEAST ONE YEAR OF AGE. . 27 [PART] 2 OPERATION OF REGISTRY SECTION 406. REQUIRED FORM. . 27 SECTION 407. FURNISHING INFORMATION; CONFIDENTIALITY. . 28 SECTION 408. PENALTY FOR RELEASING INFORMATION. . 29 SECTION 409. RESCISSION OF REGISTRATION. 29 SECTION 410. UNTIMELY REGISTRATION. . 29 SECTION 411. FEES FOR REGISTRY. . 29 [PART] 3 SEARCH OF REGISTRY SECTION 412. CHILD BORN THROUGH ASSISTED REPRODUCTION: SEARCH OF REGISTRY INAPPLICABLE. 30 SECTION 413. SEARCH OF APPROPRIATE REGISTRY. . 30 SECTION 414. CERTIFICATE OF SEARCH OF REGISTRY. . 30 SECTION 415. ADMISSIBILITY OF REGISTERED INFORMATION. . 31 [ARTICLE] 5 GENETIC TESTING SECTION 501. DEFINITIONS. . 31 SECTION 502. SCOPE OF [ARTICLE]; LIMITATION

HARVARDHARVARD LAW REVIEWREVIEW VOL.VOL. XXXIVXXXIV MAY,MAY, 19211921 NO.NO.7 7 THETHE UNIFORMUNIFORM ACTACT ONON DECLARATORYDECLARATORY R-D]1JDGMENTS GMENTS T HE National Conference ofof Commissioners on Uniform State T Laws at itsits session inin St. Louis in August, 192o,1920, approved thethe first draft of a Uniform Act on DeclaratoryDeclaratory Judgments. At thethe next session of the Conference in 1921 the Act will probably receive final approval and be recommended to legislatures for enactment. The importance of the recommendationsrecommendations of this august body in promoting the enactment of legislation in our states war­war- rants some comment upon the draft they have approved. Although a few instances of statutory authorization for the rendering of declaratory judgments may be found in our state legis­legis- lation prior to 1918, such as the California Act of 1850,1185o,l the Rhode Island Act of 1876,2 the New Jersey Act of 1915,3i915,' the Connecticut 11 CALIFORNIACAL moNIA PRACTICEPRAcrIcE Acr,AcT, § 527: "An"An actionaction may be broughtbrought byby one person against another, forfor thethe purpose of determiningdetermining an adverseadverse claimclaim whiellwhich the latterlatter makes against the former, forfor money or property, upon anan allegedalleged obligation." See KingKing v. Hall,SHall, 5 Cal.Cal. 8383 (1855).(1855). Cf. thethe actionaction of jactitation, stillstill usedused inin many coun­coun- triestries adopting thethe civilcivil law,law, 2828 YALEYALE L. J. I,I, 20. r9o9, ch. 289, 22 RHODER oDE ISLAND,ISLAND, AcrsAcrs && REsOLVES,RESOLVES, 1?76,I876, ell.ch. 563, § 17,17, GEN. LAWSLAWS 1909, ell. 289, §§ 19:ig: "No"No suitsuit inin equityequity shallshall bebe defeateddefeated on thethe groundground thatthat aa mere declaratory decree isis sought;sought; andand thethe courtcourt may makemake bindingbinding declarationsdeclarations ofof rightright inin equity,equity, withoutwithout grantinggranting consequentialconsequential relief."relief." InIn Hanley v.v.

D R A F T FOR DISCUSSION ONLYAPPROVAL Uniform Covenants Not to Compete Act [Tentative new name: Uniform Restrictive Employment Agreement Act] Uniform Law Commission June 8MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-THIRTIETH YEAR MADISON, WISCONSIN JULY 9 – 15, 2021 Informal Session Copyright © 2021 National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws This draft, including the proposed statutory language and any comments or reporter’s notes, has not been reviewed or approved by the Uniform Law Commission or the drafting committee. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the Uniform Law Commission, its commissioners, the drafting committee, or the committee’s members or reporter. June 2 July 8, 2021 Uniform Covenants Not to CompeteRestrictive Employment Agreement Act The committee appointed by and representing the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in preparing this act consists of the following individuals: Richard T. Cassidy Vermont, Co-Chair H. Clayton Walker South Carolina, Vice-Chair Vincent P. Cardi West Virginia Paul W. Chaiken Maine Anne E. Hartnett Delaware Joanne B. Huelsman Wisconsin Peter F. Langrock Vermont Gene N. Lebrun South Dakota David C. McBride Delaware Mark H. Ramsey Oklahoma Kenneth M. Rosen Alabama Keith A. Rowley Nevada Justin L. Vigdor New York Steven L. Willborn Nebraska Joan Zeldon District of Columbia William W. Barrett Indiana, Division Chair Carl H. Lisman Vermont, President Other Participants Stewart J. Schwab New York, Reporter Stephen Y. Chow Massachusetts, American Bar Association Advisor Joanne M. Pepperl Nebraska, Style Liaison Tim Schnabel Illinois, Executive Director Copies of this act may be obtained from: Uniform Law Commission 111 N.

UNIFORM TRUST CODE (Last Revised or Amended in 2010) Drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES at its ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-NINTH YEAR ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA JULY 28 – AUGUST 4, 2000 WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Copyright © 2000, 2010 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS April 10, 2020 1 ABOUT NCCUSL The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), now in its 114th year, provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law. Conference members must be lawyers, qualified to practice law. They are practicing lawyers, judges, legislators and legislative staff and law professors, who have been appointed by state governments as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to research, draft and promote enactment of uniform state laws in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical. $ NCCUSL strengthens the federal system by providing rules and procedures that are consistent from state to state but that also reflect the diverse experience of the states. $ NCCUSL statutes are representative of state experience, because the organization is made up of representatives from each state, appointed by state government. $ NCCUSL keeps state law up-to-date by addressing important and timely legal issues. $ NCCUSL’s efforts reduce the need for individuals and businesses to deal with different laws as they move and do business in different states.

Jurisprudence and Judicial Treatment of the Comments to the Uniform Commercial Code Sean Michael Hannaway

Cornell Law Review Volume 75 Article 6 Issue 4 May 1990 Jurisprudence and Judicial Treatment of the Comments to the Uniform Commercial Code Sean Michael Hannaway Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Sean Michael Hannaway, Jurisprudence and Judicial Treatment of the Comments to the Uniform Commercial Code , 75 Cornell L. Rev. 961 (1990) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol75/iss4/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE THE JURISPRUDENCE AND JUDICIAL TREATMENT OF THE COMMENTS TO THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE Although the Uniform Commercial Code' (the "UCC" or the "Code") has been one of the most influential statutes of recent time, 2 and has generated extensive discussion, its "Official Comments" have received almost no scholarly consideration.3 Nearly forty years of experience has shown that courts defer, and, this discussion will argue, ought to defer to the guidance the Comments offer as to the proper application of Code provisions. The Comments occupy an unusual position as aids to statutory interpretation. They cannot ac- curately be described as legislative history in the traditional sense, as there is little evidence that the state legislatures gave any exten- sive consideration to them when adopting the Code.4 The Com- ments are not a treatise either, for the drafters clearly intended them to fulfill a more important role.5 Part I of this Note proposes that we can only fully understand the proper role of the Comments, and therefore their authoritative value, in light of the jurisprudence of the Code.

TRB Special Report 192 33 of the payment should not be related to the life of vide eligibility for benefits under the act to per- the mortgage on the replacement dwelling. This sons outside project limits who might sustain sub- would penalize a person who paid cash. Payment of stantive economic injury because of project-related increased taxes for a specific term, such as five or activities. These proposals effectively expand the ten years, would be preferable. definition of displaced person given in Section 101(6) and suffer from the same deficiencies noted Section 204(1) in comments on that section. Some proposed amendments are objectionable because Section 213(a) (b) they eliminate the statutory limitations on both the number of years for which the displaced tenant is Most proposals amending Sections 213(a) and (b) eligible to receive rent supplements and the maximum provide for a single set of regulations for use in dollar amounts of supplemental housing payments. implementing the Uniform Act in connection with all Given the geographic and economic mobility of our federal and federally-assisted programs and population, DOT questions the necessity for projects. An agency would be designated by the extending Uniform Act entitlements to displaced president to assure uniform application and tenants for an undefined period of time. DOT also interpretation of the single set of procedures. feels that the guarantees of last-resort housing (H.R. 6736 would create a Federal Relocation provided by the government are preferable to making Assistance Compliance Office.) Development of a unlimited payments available to displacees. single set of regulations by such an agency would be DOT favors increasing the maximum time frame of a positive step toward greater uniformity among tenant responsibility to six years and the dollar federal agencies in this area.

Uniform Act Basic Principles Training Objectives Identify the constitutional basis for paying just compensation to property owners. Define the major elements of the Uniform Relocation Act. List three rights of property owners under the URA. List at least 3 types of assistance available to displaced persons under the URA. Uniform Relocation Act 1970: Public Law 91-646—”Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act” 1987: Public Law 100-17—”Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Act Amendments” Purpose of the URA The historic purpose underlying the Uniform Relocation Act (URA) is: For acquisition: Treat owners fairly and consistently, encourage acquisition by agreement, minimize litigation, and promote confidence. For displaced persons: Treat individuals fairly, equitably, consistently, and do not cause disproportionate injury. For agencies: Act efficiently and in a cost- effective manner. Uniform Relocation Act—Title I Purpose: “To provide for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced … and to establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies….” Person/displaced person Comparable replacement dwelling Displacing agency Appraisal Uniform Relocation Act— Title II Purpose: “To provide for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms by Federal and federally assisted programs….” Relocation assistance Moving expenses Replacement housing payments Uniform Relocation Act—Title III Purpose: “In order to encourage and expedite the acquisition of real property by agreements with owners, to avoid litigation and relieve congestion in the courts, to assure consistent treatment for owners…(the) agency shall make every reasonable effort to acquire expeditiously real property by negotiation.” Appraisal Acquisition Condemnation Just Compensation “In no event shall such amount be less than the agency’s approved appraisal of the fair market value of such property.” [Title III, Sec.

UNIFORM STATUTE AND RULE CONSTRUCTION ACT (1995) Drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES at its ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-FOURTH YEAR IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI JULY 28 - AUGUST 4, 1995 WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT 1995 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS Approved by the American Bar Association Baltimore, Maryland, February 5, 1996 UNIFORM STATUTE AND RULE CONSTRUCTION ACT (1995) The Committee that acted for the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in preparing the Uniform Statute and Rule Construction Act (1995) was as follows: MAURICE A. HARTNETT, III, Chambers, Supreme Court, 57 The Green, Dover, DE 19901, Chair ROBERT H. ARONSON, University of Washington, School of Law, Condon Hall, JB-20, Seattle, WA 98105 PETER J. DYKMAN, Legislative Reference Bureau, P.O. Box 2037, 100 North Hamilton Street, Madison, WI 53701 WILLIAM H. NAST, JR., P.O. Box 301, Harrisburg, PA 17108, National Conference Co-Reporter MILLARD H. RUUD, University of Texas, School of Law, 727 East 26th Street, Austin, TX 78705, National Conference Co-Reporter PAULA TACKETT, Legislative Council Service, Room 311, State Capitol, Santa Fe, NM 87503 ROBERT J. TENNESSEN, 700 Baker Building, 706 South Second Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402 EX OFFICIO RICHARD C. HITE, 200 West Douglas Avenue, Suite 600, Wichita, KS 67202, President W. JACKSON WILLOUGHBY, Placer County Municipal Court, 300 Taylor Street, Roseville, CA 95678, Chair, Division B EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FRED H. MILLER, University of Oklahoma, College of Law, 300 Timberdell Road, Norman, OK 73019, Executive Director WILLIAM J.

UNIFORM PREMARITAL AND MARITAL AGREEMENTS ACT Drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES at its ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-TWENTY-FIRST YEAR NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE JULY 13 - JULY 19, 2012 WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT 8 2012 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS January 2, 2013 ABOUT ULC The Uniform Law Commission (ULC), also known as National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), now in its 121st year, provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law. ULC members must be lawyers, qualified to practice law. They are practicing lawyers, judges, legislators and legislative staff and law professors, who have been appointed by state governments as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to research, draft and promote enactment of uniform state laws in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical. • ULC strengthens the federal system by providing rules and procedures that are consistent from state to state but that also reflect the diverse experience of the states. • ULC statutes are representative of state experience, because the organization is made up of representatives from each state, appointed by state government. • ULC keeps state law up-to-date by addressing important and timely legal issues. • ULC’s efforts reduce the need for individuals and businesses to deal with different laws as they move and do business in different states.

Merchant and Consumer Protection: The Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act Richard F. Dole, Jr.t Deceptive trade practices victimize honest merchants as well as consumers, and impair rational allocation of economic resources. In recent years, state and federal legislators have become increasingly concerned with suppression of commercial deception, with the recently enacted federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act1 perhaps the most spectacular development so far. Banning deception is appropriately a task for state as well as federal law. Federal legislation for the protection of consumers is a notori- ously slow process; it took Senator Hart five years to win acceptance for his truth-in-labeling proposals, and his compulsory package-size sug- gestions have fallen before stiff opposition.2 In some states, at least, it is easier to enact consumer protection legislation, particularly where such laws have the support of local businessmen faced with the decep- tive practices of competing, out-of-state firms. Three years ago, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws rec- ommended the enactment of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act as a supplement to existing state legislation.3 The Act has already been passed in five states 4 and is likely to become a significant means of combatting consumer fraud. of Law, - Assistant Professor of Law, University of Iowa; Visiting Associate Professor University of Minnesota; Consultant, Special Committee on Unfair Competition, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. LL.B. 1961, LL.M. 1963, Cornell Uni- versity; SJ.D. 1966, University of Michigan. This artide, which was accepted at the Univer- sity of Michigan Law School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the SJ).

REPORT OF THE AD HOC MASSACHUSETTS UNIFORM TRUST CODE COMMITTEE Updated Post-Enactment Introduction In 2000, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated for consideration by the states a Uniform Trust Code (the “Uniform Code”) with the stated objective of providing states with precise, comprehensive and easily accessible guidance on trust law questions. This was the first attempt to achieve national codification of the law of trusts, and the Uniform Code has already been adopted in twenty-three other states and the District of Columbia. According to the Uniform Law Commission, the increasing use of trusts, nationally and internationally, for family estate planning and commercial transactions has led to an increasing number of day-to-day questions involving trusts, and across a number of jurisdictions. The Uniform Code is an attempt to codify the common law rules comprehensively and uniformly, and in some cases to include innovative provisions thought to improve upon the common law. Most of the Uniform Trust Code consists of default rules. They apply only if the terms of the trust fail to address or insufficiently cover a particular issue (see Section 105). The exceptions that cannot be overridden are set forth in Section 105(b). Of course, there is no shortage of common law regarding trusts in Massachusetts. Massachusetts also has statutory law relating to trusts, though no comprehensive codification. Over the years, the Commonwealth also codified several laws that relate to trusts, including the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities (enacted in 1989), the Massachusetts Prudent Investor Act in 1998, the Massachusetts Principal and Income Act in 2005, and the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code (the “Probate Code”) in 2009.

RULES APPLICABLE TO THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS DEVELOPED IN THE OHADA Lect. univ. drd. Anca LAZAR1, George Bariţiu University in Braşov Lect. univ. dr. Petru Dan JOANDREA MOGA2 Academia de Poliţie „Al. I. Cuza”, Bucureşti Abstract The OHADA Uniform Act on contract law (draft)3 contains separate provisions on commercial sale and treats aspects of the scope, form of contract, obligations of the parties, the effects of the contract with reference to the transfer of property and risks, but also to non-executing the contract and liability of the parties. Key words: Uniform Act, international sale, international trade contract, international conventions, uniform legal law, contract uniform law. 1. Introduction The Doctrinaires have channeled their concerns along with the practitioners towards the contract of International Sale of Goods, since it constitutes the most important and effective legal instrument by which both individual or general purposes can be achieved, related to the growth and diversification in trade in the world. The role of the Organization was to transfer the skills of legal integration of an Interstate organization with power of decision and with supranational powers in order to achieve an overall unique and coherent legal ensemble for the Member States. In order to harmonize and standardize the analyze of the ensemble of legal rules used by the African states after obtaining independence was required, as well as the results and methods of legal integration. Harmonization is the operation consisting of merging legal systems in order to suppress the differences and conflicts of form and make them compatible with the Community objectives.