Legal Memorandum: Post-judgment Remedies in MN

Issue: Under Minnesota law, when, post-judgment, may a party seek a receivership?

Area of Law: Litigation & Procedure
Keywords: Post-judgment; Receivership; An execution
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Cited Cases: None
Cited Statutes: Minn. Stat. § 576.01, subd. 1(2)
Date: 12/01/2010

Both Minnesota and North Carolina have adopted the standard version of UCC § 2-316, without significant modification.  See U.L.A. UCC § 2-316 (2004), Action in Adopting Jurisdictions.*FN1  The Minnesota statute provides:

(1)   Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but subject to the provisions of this article on parol or extrinsic evidence (section 336.2-202) negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.


(2)   Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous.  Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that "There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof."

(3)   Notwithstanding subsection (2)

(a)        unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like "as is," "with all faults" or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer’s attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty; and

#brad_icons_1 li a{color:#999999;}