But any contrary agreement cannot conflict with § 2-401(1). The “Unless ...” clauses are to be read as if they said: “In the absence of such an agreement which explicitly provides to the contrary ...,” in which event the “such” would refer to agreements contemplated by § 2-401(1), including its limitations. This writer has tinkered with the language and is convinced that there is no logical construction of § 2-401(2) or § 2-401(3) that would permit disobedience to § 2-401(1). Section 2-401(1) deals with agreements. Sections 2-401(2) and (3) deal with certain fact patterns in the absence of such an agreement. In re J. Adrian Sons, Inc., 205 B.R. 24, 27 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.1997). See also Stillwater Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. CIT Group/ Equip. Fin. Inc., 383 F.3d 1148, 1152 (10th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); In re Samuels & Co., 526 F.2d 1238, 1246 (5th
holding that with respect to owners summaryjudgment claims against subsequent buyers under ucc  24011 owners reservation of title in himself was limited in effect to reservation of security interest and that failure of owner to perfect his security interest made it subordinate under ucc  9  301lc to rights of buyer not in ordinary course of business holding that subrogation rights are not security interests under ucc article 9 holding that the retention of title pursuant to a repurchase agreement limits the seller to the reservation of a security interest under ucc  2401 holding that the sellers retention of the deposit evidenced an election of liquidated damages by the seller holding that although a financing statement may be used to assist in the interpretation of the security agreement the financing statement does not create a security interest and cannot extend a security interest beyond what has been unambiguously described in a security agreement