UCC battle of forms creating security agreement conflicts - which terms control?
I'm dealing with a nightmare scenario where we have conflicting security agreement terms due to what I think is a classic UCC battle of forms situation. Our company extended credit to a manufacturer last year, and we've got purchase orders, invoices, and security agreements all with different collateral descriptions and perfection requirements. The debtor's purchase order form says one thing about which assets secure the debt, our credit application says another, and the final security agreement we filed on the UCC-1 describes the collateral differently again. Now we're trying to perfect our security interest properly but I'm not sure which document controls for the collateral description. The debtor is claiming our UCC-1 filing is defective because it doesn't match their understanding of what was pledged as collateral. Has anyone dealt with this kind of UCC battle of forms mess before? I need to know which terms actually govern and whether I need to file a UCC-3 amendment to fix the collateral description or if the original filing stands as written.
35 comments
Join the conversation
Destiny Bryant
This is exactly the kind of documentation nightmare that happens when multiple forms get exchanged without proper review. In a UCC battle of forms situation, you need to look at which document was the final expression of the parties' agreement regarding the security interest. The security agreement itself usually controls over purchase orders or credit apps, but if there are conflicts between the security agreement and the UCC-1, that's where it gets tricky.
0 coins
Dyllan Nantx
•But what if the debtor never actually signed the security agreement? I've seen cases where the only signed document is the credit application and everything else is just electronic confirmations.
0 coins
Destiny Bryant
•Good point - if there's no signed security agreement, then you have to look at the course of dealing and which terms were actually accepted through performance. The UCC-1 filing requirements are separate from what the actual security agreement says anyway.
0 coins
TillyCombatwarrior
I ran into something similar last month and ended up having to do a complete document review to figure out which collateral description was correct. The problem with UCC battle of forms is that unlike regular contract disputes, you've got perfection requirements that don't wait for you to sort out the paperwork. If your UCC-1 is filed with the wrong collateral description, you could lose priority even if you eventually prove what the parties intended.
0 coins
Anna Xian
•This is why I always recommend using a document verification service before filing. I discovered Certana.ai last year after filing a UCC-1 with a collateral description that didn't match our security agreement. You can upload all your documents - the purchase orders, security agreements, UCC-1 forms - and it cross-checks everything to catch inconsistencies before they become problems. Would have saved me weeks of headaches.
0 coins
Jungleboo Soletrain
•How does that work exactly? Do you just upload PDFs and it compares the terms automatically?
0 coins
Anna Xian
•Yeah, exactly. You upload your Charter to UCC-1 workflow or UCC-3 to UCC-1 check workflow and it flags any discrepancies in debtor names, collateral descriptions, filing numbers, all that stuff. Really wish I'd known about it sooner.
0 coins
Rajan Walker
The general rule is that the last document sent controls in a battle of forms, but with security interests you have to be more careful because the UCC has specific requirements for what constitutes a security agreement. If your UCC-1 describes collateral that wasn't actually part of the security agreement, you could have perfection issues even if you win the contract interpretation battle.
0 coins
Nadia Zaldivar
•Wait, so if the UCC-1 describes MORE collateral than the security agreement, is that better or worse than describing less?
0 coins
Rajan Walker
•Usually worse because you can't perfect a security interest in collateral that isn't covered by a valid security agreement. The UCC-1 can't create rights that don't exist in the underlying agreement.
0 coins
Lukas Fitzgerald
•This is exactly why the whole system is broken. You need a law degree just to file a lien properly.
0 coins
Ev Luca
Have you considered that this might not actually be a battle of forms situation? If the purchase orders and invoices weren't intended to create security interests, then only the security agreement and UCC-1 matter. The question is whether the UCC-1 filing accurately reflects what's in the security agreement.
0 coins
Hattie Carson
•That's a good point. The purchase orders do reference security for payment terms, but they're not as detailed as the formal security agreement we had them sign later.
0 coins
Avery Davis
•If you have a formal security agreement that was signed after the purchase orders, that should control. The purchase order language was probably just standard boilerplate anyway.
0 coins
Collins Angel
I'm dealing with almost the exact same thing right now! Multiple documents, conflicting terms, and the debtor is claiming our filing is defective. It's making me paranoid about every UCC-1 I file now. How do you even prevent this from happening in the first place?
0 coins
Marcelle Drum
•Document control is huge. Make sure your credit applications, security agreements, and UCC filings all use identical language for debtor names and collateral descriptions. Also helps to have someone review everything before filing.
0 coins
Tate Jensen
•I've started using Certana.ai for exactly this reason. Upload all your documents before filing and it catches these inconsistencies automatically. Saved me from filing a UCC-1 with a debtor name that didn't match our security agreement exactly.
0 coins
Collins Angel
•Is that expensive? We're a small lender and can't afford a lot of extra costs.
0 coins
Tate Jensen
•It's actually pretty reasonable considering what it costs to fix filing mistakes. Plus it's way faster than having someone manually compare all the documents.
0 coins
Adaline Wong
The reality is that most of these battle of forms situations get resolved by looking at what the parties actually did rather than what all the paperwork says. If the debtor has been making payments and treating certain assets as collateral, that conduct can override conflicting written terms.
0 coins
Gabriel Ruiz
•But that doesn't help with the perfection issue. Even if you can prove what the parties intended, your UCC-1 still needs to be filed correctly or you lose priority.
0 coins
Misterclamation Skyblue
•True, which is why you need to fix the filing ASAP if there's any question about the collateral description. File a UCC-3 amendment to clarify the collateral before someone else gets priority.
0 coins
Peyton Clarke
This is why I always insist on having our lawyer review the security agreement before we file the UCC-1. Yes, it costs more upfront, but it's cheaper than dealing with perfection problems later. These battle of forms situations are just too risky to wing it.
0 coins
Vince Eh
•Not everyone has the budget for lawyer review on every filing though. Sometimes you need to file quickly to get priority and there's no time for full legal review.
0 coins
Sophia Gabriel
•That's where document checking tools like Certana.ai come in handy. You get the verification without the legal fees and time delays. Just upload your documents and it flags any issues instantly.
0 coins
Tobias Lancaster
In my experience, the courts usually try to harmonize conflicting terms rather than throw out the whole security interest. They'll look at the overall intent and the course of dealing between the parties. But you still need to make sure your UCC-1 filing is defensible.
0 coins
Ezra Beard
•That's assuming you have time to litigate. If another creditor files and gets priority while you're sorting out your paperwork, it doesn't matter what the court would have decided.
0 coins
Statiia Aarssizan
•Exactly why timing is so crucial with UCC filings. Better to file a protective UCC-1 and amend later than to wait and lose priority.
0 coins
Tobias Lancaster
•Good point. Priority fights are won by whoever files first with a substantially compliant UCC-1, not whoever has the cleanest paperwork.
0 coins
Reginald Blackwell
Just went through something similar and ended up filing a UCC-3 amendment to clarify the collateral description. Better safe than sorry, especially when you're dealing with conflicting terms in multiple documents. The amendment process is straightforward and gives you peace of mind.
0 coins
Aria Khan
•How long did that take? I'm worried about losing priority while the amendment is pending.
0 coins
Reginald Blackwell
•UCC-3 amendments are usually processed pretty quickly, within a few days in most states. Your original filing date still controls for priority purposes as long as the amendment doesn't add new collateral.
0 coins
Everett Tutum
The key thing to remember is that UCC battle of forms rules are different from regular contract law. The UCC has specific provisions about conflicting terms in security agreements, and perfection requirements don't wait for you to sort out contractual disputes. File first, litigate later if necessary.
0 coins
Sunny Wang
•This is the best advice in the thread. Too many people get caught up in trying to perfect their paperwork and lose priority to someone who just files a basic UCC-1 first.
0 coins
Hattie Carson
•Thanks everyone for the input. I think I'm going to file a UCC-3 amendment to clarify the collateral description and then work on cleaning up our document processes to prevent this from happening again.
0 coins