since' the Idaho court found the two provisions had the same meaning and lead to the same conclusion, there was no difference in the result. In this sense, it was a false conflict. Coeur d’Alene Mining is not helpful in resolving our case. In sum, although we recognize that this decision is not without countervailing considerations, we conclude the UCC pervasively occupies this field of law and that the district court properly concluded that the UCC’s three-year statute of limitations barred Bradley’s claim. II. The second issue is whether the UCC preempts Bradley’s common law claims. Although Minnesota courts have yet to address specifically whether UCC Article 3 bars common law claims, case law points in that direction. See Hapka v. Paquin Farms, 458 N.W.2d 683, 688 (Minn.1990) (<HOLDING>); Hedged Inv. Partners v. Norwest Bank Minn.,
holding that article 4a of the ucc preempts common law claims where they are inconsistent or duplicative holding that subrogation rights are not security interests under ucc article 9 holding that the flsa preempts certain state law claims holding that article 2 of the ucc preempts common law claims holding that general maritime law preempts state law