In a portion of the opinion that we have omitted, the court discussed the resolution of a priority dispute between PCA, a secured party, and Hopkins, a seller of goods who had rights to reclaim the goods under provisions of Article 2 giving the seller such rights in the case of a debtor's involvency. That discussion seemed irrelevant to us because the court ultimately concludes that PCA's security interest did not attach to the goods being sold by Hopkins and thus there was no priority dispute to resolve.

    The court concludes that PCA's security interest in after-acquired collateral did not attach to the 88 cattle being held on the farm of Morris Baugh because Walden had no rights in the collateral.  Considering the following, do you agree?   UCC 2-501 provides in part that "[t]he buyer obtains a special property and an insurable interest in goods by identification of existing goods as goods to which the contract refers."  Hadn't 88 head of cattle been identified to the contract?   Moreover, under UCC 2-502, upon acquisition of that special property interest, Walden acquired a vested right to recover the cattle from Hopkins if Walden later paid part or all of the price of the cattle and if Hopkins became insolvent within ten days after receipt of the first installment of the price.  On the other hand, under UCC 2-716 Walden would have been permitted to replevy the cattle only if they were unique (unlikely), or if cover were not possible, and, under UCC 2-509, Walden might not have had to pay for the cattle if, prior to receipt, they had been destroyed by the order of the government after contracting "hoof and mouth" disease.