Form of warehouse receipt; effect of omission

84-7-202. Form of warehouse receipt; effect of omission. (a) A warehouse receipt need not be in any particular form. (b) Unless a warehouse receipt provides for each of the following, the warehouse is liable for damages caused to a person injured by its omission: (1) A statement of the location of the warehouse facility where the goods are stored; (2) the date of issue of the receipt; (3) the unique identification code of the receipt; (4) a statement whether the goods received will be delivered to the bearer, to a named person, or to a named person or its order; (5) the rate of storage and handling charges, unless goods are stored under a field warehousing arrangement, in which case a statement of that fact is sufficient on a nonnegotiable receipt; (6) a description of the goods or the packages containing them; (7) the signature of the warehouse or its agent; (8) if the receipt is issued for goods that the warehouse owns, either solely, jointly, or in common with others, a statement of the fact of that ownership; and (9) a statement of the amount of advances made and of liabilities incurred for which the warehouse claims a lien or security interest, unless the precise amount of advances made or liabilities incurred, at the time of the issue of the receipt, is unknown to the warehouse or to its agent that issued the receipt, in which case a statement of the fact that advances have been made or liabilities incurred and the purpose of the advances or liabilities is sufficient. (c) A warehouse may insert in its receipt any terms that are not contrary to the uniform commercial code and do not impair its obligation of delivery under K.S.A. 2025 Supp. 84-7-403, and amendments thereto, or its duty of care under K.S.A. 2025 Supp. 84-7-204, and amendments thereto. Any contrary provision is ineffective. History: L. 2007, ch. 90, § 8; July 1, 2008. KANSAS COMMENT, 1996 Subsections (1) and (2) are in accord with former K.S.A. 82-102; subsection (3) is in accord with former K.S.A. 82-103. The provisions of K.S.A. 34-239, prescribing the form of receipt for grain stored in a licensed warehouse, are similar but not identical to the provisions of this section (84-7-202). Since neither statute refers to the other, it would seem prudent for a warehouseman to comply with both. This may be difficult, however, since K.S.A. 34-238 mandates the use of forms prepared by the state grain inspector. Under the Code the only effect of omission of an essential term is the imposition of liability on the issuer for damages caused by the omission. Former case law is in accord. See Cowley County Nat'l Bank v. Rawlins-Dobbs Elevator Co., 96 K. 461, 152 P. 647 (1915); Gaines v. Cody, 175 K. 187, 263 P.2d 252 (1953). See also K.S.A. 34-239, which imposes liability for damages on a warehouseman who omits a required term from a negotiable receipt. The requirement in paragraph (2)(h) that the warehouseman's ownership interest be disclosed is doubly important in light of K.S.A. 34-293, which makes it a felony to fail to so disclose. The statement in paragraph (2)(i) permitting a general statement that advances have been made without stating an amount appears to conflict with 84-7-209(2), which requires an amount to be specified when the warehouseman reserves a security interest. A suggested reconciliation is in Kansas Comment 1996 to 84-7-209. Subsection (3) allows the parties to enter into agreements which are not contrary to the Kansas Uniform Commercial Code, but such agreements must not impair the obligation of delivery or the duty of care. An agreement to the contrary was held void in Butler Mfg Co. v. Americold, Inc., 835 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Kan. 1993), discussed in Kansas Comment 1996 to 84-7-204. Revisor's Note: Former section 84-7-202 repealed by L. 2007, ch. 90, § 78 and the number reassigned to the current text. Law Review and Bar Journal References: "Grain Elevator Bankruptcies: How Can the Grain Producer be Better Protected?" Marc E. Elkins, 31 K.L.R. 157, 161 (1982). CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Whether contractual provisions exculpating warehouseman from all liability for its own ordinary negligence is enforceable examined. Butler Mfg Co. v. Americold Corp., 835 F. Supp. 1274, 1280 (1993).