Definition
To buy is to acquire ownership of property or a right by giving, or agreeing to give, an accepted price or consideration in exchange. In legal usage, "buy" is functionally synonymous with "purchase," and the two terms are used interchangeably across contracts, commercial statutes, and property law. The legal act of buying is complete either upon actual transfer of consideration or upon a binding agreement to transfer it — the exchange of money need not be simultaneous with the transfer of title.
Derivative forms recognized in legal usage:
BUYER: One who acquires property by purchase. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, "buyer" carries a specific technical meaning: a person who buys or contracts to buy goods. This definition extends to executory contracts, not just completed transactions.
BUY IN: To cause property to be offered at public sale — typically a forced or auction sale — and then to become the purchaser of that property oneself. The phrase captures a recognized maneuver in auction and foreclosure contexts where a creditor, mortgagee, or prior owner reacquires property through a public sale they arranged or participated in.
BUYING TITLES: A disfavored or prohibited practice of purchasing a disputed or defective title — particularly one held by a disseisee — in order to acquire a litigation advantage or speculative claim. Historically associated with champerty and maintenance concerns. Historical sources cross-reference this concept to doctrines of seisin and disseisin.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): To obtain something in exchange for money or goods; more broadly, to obtain by any sacrifice; also colloquially, to accept as true ("I don't buy that argument"), to bribe, or to bluff (in poker).
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To acquire ownership by giving an accepted price or consideration; to acquire or procure by something given or done in exchange, literally or figuratively.
The colloquial expansions of "buy" — to believe, to bribe, to bluff — are legally irrelevant in most contexts, but the bribery sense occasionally surfaces in criminal law discussions. More importantly, the figurative sense of buying through non-monetary sacrifice ("buying time," "buying a verdict") does not create legal obligations and should not be read into contract or commercial law sources where "buy" appears. In legal instruments, "buy" is a term of art meaning a consensual exchange of consideration for ownership, not a loose synonym for obtaining anything by any means.
---
Common Confusion
BUY vs. PURCHASE: The terms are legally equivalent in most jurisdictions and most contexts. Some older sources treat "purchase" as the more formal or technical term — particularly in property law, where "purchase" historically contrasted with acquisition by descent — while "buy" implied a money price specifically. Modern usage, including the UCC, treats the terms as interchangeable. Researchers should not read significance into an instrument's choice of one word over the other without contextual support.
BUY vs. DISCOUNT (as applied to negotiable instruments): Anderson's Dictionary flags the distinction between buying a note and discounting a note. To buy a note is to acquire it outright for a price. To discount a note is to advance less than its face value with the difference representing the lender's charge for time and risk. The legal consequences — particularly for holder-in-due-course status and recourse — can differ. Sources treating these as equivalent should be read with caution.
---
Why It Matters in Research
"Buy" is a deceptively simple term that conceals several research traps:
1. UCC vs. common law definitions of "buyer." When reading pre-UCC commercial cases or non-goods transactions, "buyer" carries its common law meaning — any purchaser. In UCC Article 2 contexts, "buyer" is defined to include one who has only contracted to buy, affecting when risk of loss passes, when the buyer's remedies attach, and whether the buyer qualifies as a buyer in ordinary course. Importing one definition into the other's context produces errors.
2. "Buy in" in foreclosure and auction research. The term appears frequently in 19th- and early 20th-century case law involving mortgagee purchases at sheriff's sales and judgment sales. The legal consequences of a mortgagee "buying in" at its own foreclosure sale — particularly for deficiency judgment calculations and redemption rights — varied sharply by jurisdiction and era. Historical sources often describe the mechanics without fully addressing the equitable complications that followed.
3. "Buying titles" and champerty. Anderson's cross-reference to seisin and disseisin connects this phrase to a body of law largely obsolete in most American jurisdictions but still occasionally relevant in title dispute litigation. Researchers encountering this phrase in older opinions should trace it through champerty and maintenance doctrine, not modern contract law.
4. Buy-sell agreements in business organization law. The term "buy" in modern transactional practice most often appears as part of "buy-sell agreement" — a contractual mechanism governing ownership transfers in closely held corporations, partnerships, and LLCs. This usage is distinct from the simple transactional sense and invokes an entire body of valuation, triggering-event, and enforceability doctrine. See the Encyclopedia cross-reference above.
5. Consideration requirement. All three historical sources define "buy" to require giving, or agreeing to give, an accepted price or consideration. This seemingly obvious point matters when instruments use "buy" in contexts where consideration is disputed, nominal, or non-monetary — the term carries an implicit requirement that courts have sometimes used to police sham transactions.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
All three sources agree on the core definition: buying is acquiring ownership by giving or agreeing to give an accepted price or consideration. The phrasing tracks Webster's 1913 closely, suggesting the legal dictionaries were borrowing from the common definition rather than developing an independent legal one — appropriate for a term where ordinary and legal meaning largely converge.
Black's 2nd edition and Anderson's both recognize "buy in" and "buying titles" as distinct sub-entries. Black's 2nd edition's entry for "buying titles" appears to be cut off in available sources ("the purcnnss of the rights o—"), making Anderson's cross-reference to seisin and disseisin the more complete treatment for historical research on that sub-concept.
Anderson's is the only source to flag the buy/discount distinction for negotiable instruments, which remains the most practically significant specialized usage that the other dictionaries miss. Researchers working in commercial paper or banking law history should rely on Anderson's entry over Black's for this distinction.
None of the historical sources address the UCC framework, which postdates them and represents the most significant doctrinal development for the term in commercial law.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The UCC definition of "buyer" (Article 2) applies in all states for goods transactions, but non-goods contexts — real property, services, intellectual property — rely on common law or jurisdiction-specific statutory definitions. "Buy in" at foreclosure sales carries different equitable and redemption consequences depending on state foreclosure law, which varies significantly between judicial and non-judicial foreclosure jurisdictions.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Shareholders — Stock Transfer Restrictions and Buy-Sell Agreements (Law Mind Business Organizations & Corporate Law Encyclopedia)
---