Liability for nonreceipt or misdescription

84-7-203. Liability for nonreceipt or misdescription. A party to or purchaser for value in good faith of a document of title, other than a bill of lading, that relies upon the description of the goods in the document may recover from the issuer damages caused by the nonreceipt or misdescription of the goods, except to the extent that: (1) The document conspicuously indicates that the issuer does not know whether all or part of the goods in fact were received or conform to the description, such as a case in which the description is in terms of marks or labels or kind, quantity, or condition, or the receipt or description is qualified by "contents, condition, and quality unknown," "said to contain," or words of similar import, if the indication is true; or (2) the party or purchaser otherwise has notice of the nonreceipt or misdescription. History: L. 2007, ch. 90, § 9; July 1, 2008. KANSAS COMMENT, 1996 This section is substantially in accord with former K.S.A. 82-120, but the requirement that the notation on the receipt be "conspicuous" is new. "Conspicuous" is defined in 84-1-201 (10). This section, coupled with the expanded definition of "issuer" in 84-7-102, places the risk of loss from a warehouseman's agent fraudulently or mistakenly issuing improper receipts on the warehouseman. The issuer is essentially warranting the description required by 84-7-202. See Branch Banking & Trust v. Gill, 293 N.C. 164, 237 S.E.2d 21 (1977). The warehouseman may not disclaim the liability for nondelivery or the misdescription of the goods. See 84-7-202(3) and Butler Mfg. Co. v. Americold, Inc., 835 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Kan. 1993), discussed in Kansas Comment 1996 to 84-7-204. 84-7-301 provides for similar liability for misdescribed bills of lading. Revisor's Note: Former section 84-7-203 repealed by L. 2007, ch. 90, § 78 and the number reassigned to the current text.