Oops! The Unfortunate (but Basic) Error in the New UCC Article 12

The Uniform Law Commission and American Law Institute have recognized the need for commercial law to govern digital transactions and responded with the proposed addition of a new article to the Uniform Commercial Code (the “Code” or “UCC”), Article 12. Article 12 will govern the transfer of property rights in a particular category of digital assets (controllable electronic records), which would include commonly known digital assets, such as bitcoin and non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”). Although the addition of Article 12 should provide more certainty in transactions involving current and emerging technologies, there is a fundamental problem with the article as it is currently drafted, which, left unresolved, will instead invite legal uncertainty and litigation. The problem is the drafters’ choice to cast the “qualifying purchaser” in the role of the dramatis personae of Article 12. Article 12’s “qualifying purchaser” benefits from a generous rule that allows them to take controllable electronic records free from competing claims. The drafters include a person who obtains a controllable electronic record from a thief or hacker as someone who could be a “qualifying purchaser.” However, in order to be a “purchaser” under the current definition in the UCC, a person must take through a transaction that creates an interest in property. Thieves and hackers obtain no property interest when they steal a controllable electronic record, so a person who takes a controllable electronic record from a hacker could not be participating in a transaction that creates an interest in property. Thus, they could not be a “qualifying purchaser,” as the drafters claim. Most of the uncertainty of the result could have been avoided had the drafters chosen a term other than “purchaser” to describe the beneficiary of Article 12’s liberal take-free rule and defined it in a manner that would effectuate the drafters’ statutory aim. However, despite making the drafters aware of this glaring issue, they have failed to remedy the mistake. This is unfortunate and will likely lead to legal uncertainty and, thus, needless litigation after the article’s enactment. Why rely on courts to tweak sections of the Code if ambiguities are recognized and can be eliminated by careful drafting? If inartful statutory drafting is a source of uncertainty that can easily be reduced without offsetting social costs, efforts should be made to do so.