Also known as: usual courses of business · ordinary course of business
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An activity or transaction that conforms to the normal customary practices of a particular business or the type of business in which it is engaged.
Universal Motors sold a used truck to Ursula Upton. Universal had granted a perfected security interest in all its inventory to Unity Capital. Ursula paid fair value and had no actual knowledge that the sale violated the security agreement. Because the sale followed Universal's regular practice of disposing of used vehicles to customers, Ursula qualifies as a buyer in ordinary course and takes the truck free of Unity Capital's interest.
Ugo Ucelli, a partner in Urban Logistics, negligently damaged a customer's shipment while routing deliveries. The routing decision was part of the firm's daily operations. Because Ugo acted in the ordinary course of the partnership's business, the partnership is liable for the resulting loss.
Ultimate Solutions received a subpoena for its project files. It produced the documents in the same folders and sequence used by its project managers for ongoing client work. Because the production followed the company's actual record-keeping practices, the response satisfied the obligation to produce documents as kept in the ordinary course of business.
During divorce proceedings, Uriel Urban continued to pay employees and vendors from the family business account. The payments matched the company's established payroll and supplier schedule. Because the transfers occurred in the usual course of business, they did not violate the temporary injunction against asset dispositions.
Umeko Uchida and two other partners voted to buy replacement computers for their consulting firm. The purchase aligned with the firm's regular practice of updating equipment every two years. Because the matter fell within the ordinary course of business, the majority vote bound the partnership without requiring unanimous consent.
Una Unger, a pharmacologist, testified about drug safety based on studies she conducted before litigation arose. Those studies followed the laboratory's standard protocols for testing new compounds. Because the research occurred in the usual course of business, it carried indicia of reliability that supported admission of her expert opinion.
Two minors brought suit against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, claiming they suffered limb reduction birth defects because their mothers had taken Bendectin, a drug prescribed for morning sickness to about 17.5 million pregnant women in the United States between 1957 and 1982. Limb reduction defects occur in fewer than one birth out of every 1000. Scientists do not know the mechanism by which any teratogen causes such defects. The plaintiffs offered testimony from three groups of experts. One group proposed to testify to a statistical link between Bendectin ingestion during pregnancy and limb reduction defects based on reanalyses of published studies that had reported no such association. A second group proposed to testify that Bendectin causes limb reduction defects in humans because it causes such defects in laboratory animals. A third group proposed to testify based on the similarity of Bendectin's chemical structure to other drugs suspected of causing birth defects. The district court granted summary judgment to Merrell Dow after excluding the plaintiffs' expert testimony. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed, and remanded for consideration under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. On remand, the Ninth Circuit examined the affidavits and prior trial testimony of the plaintiffs' experts. None of the experts had studied the effect of Bendectin on limb reduction defects before being hired to testify in this or related cases. None had published his work on Bendectin in a scientific journal. The only review their work had received was by judges and juries. Plaintiffs' epidemiological experts made vague assertions of a statistically significant relationship between Bendectin and birth defects but did not state that the relative risk exceeded two. With the exception of Dr. Palmer, the remaining experts were willing to testify only that Bendectin is capable of causing birth defects. Dr. Palmer alone was willing to testify that Bendectin did cause the limb defects in each of the children, based on his review of the plaintiffs' medical records and his conclusion that Bendectin is a teratogen.
View caseThe buyer must purchase goods in good faith without knowledge that the sale violates another party's rights and the purchase must comport with the seller's usual or customary practices in selling goods of that kind.
Supporting sources
A partnership is liable when the partner acts in the ordinary course of the partnership's business or with actual or apparent authority of the partnership.
Supporting sources
The responding person must either produce the documents as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
Supporting sources
A party may continue to transfer or dispose of property in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life, provided any required notice of extraordinary expenditures is given.
Supporting sources
Acts outside the ordinary course of business and amendments to the partnership agreement require the affirmative vote or consent of all partners.
Supporting sources
Such research is less likely to be biased by litigation incentives and must normally satisfy institutional standards to attract funding and support.
Supporting sources
…interests. Then, too, independent research carries its own indicia of reliability, as it is conducted, so to speak, in the usual course of business and must normally satisfy a variety of standards to attract funding and institutional support. Finally, there is usually a limited number of scientists actively conducting research on the…