The Name Game--Playing to Win Under 9-402 of the Uniform Commercial Code
Hofstra Law Review
Section 9-402 of the Uniform Commercial Code' appears to be straightforward and simple to interpret.2 Yet it has provoked extensive litigation, generated thousands of pages of judicial opinions, and created unnecessary uncertainty arising from non-uniform practices and decisions.3 This Article examines the requirements of Section 9-
402, analyzes judicial approaches to the problems arising thereunder with respect to notice, and suggests judicial, administrative and legislative reforms. It concludes that the judiciary should apply a two tier test to interpret § 9-402(8) and deny perfected status in the absence of the availability of actual notice, that the administrative offices should cooperate to establish consistent routine procedures and conventions with respect to filing and retrieval methods, and that the Code should be amended to specifically require the use of the debtor's legal name on the financing statement.
Julianna J. Zekan, The Name Game--Playing to Win Under 9-402 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 19 Hofstra L. REV. 365 (1990).