O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-12-5 (2019)

Chapter does not create requirement for electronic transactions; determination as to whether parties intend to conduct electronic transactions

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This chapter shall not require a record or signature to be created, generated, sent, communicated, received, stored, or otherwise processed or used by electronic means or in electronic form.

(b) This chapter shall apply only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means. Whether the parties agree to conduct a transaction by electronic means is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties’ conduct.

(c) A party that agrees to conduct a transaction by electronic means may refuse to conduct other transactions by electronic means. The right granted by this subsection shall not be waived by agreement.

(d) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the effect of any of this chapter’s provisions may be varied by agreement. The presence in certain provisions of this chapter of the words “unless otherwise agreed,” or words of similar import, shall not imply that the effect of other provisions may not be varied by agreement.

(e) Whether an electronic record or electronic signature has legal consequences shall be determined by this chapter and other applicable laws.

History

Code 1981, § 10-12-5, enacted by Ga. L. 2009, p. 698, § 1/HB 126.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2022–2022 · leading case: State of Georgia v. Fed. Def. Prog., Inc., 315 Ga. 319 (Ga. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Georgia v. Fed. Def. Prog., Inc., 315 Ga. 319 (Ga. 2022). · cites it 12× “” Therefore, the key question is whether the parties agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means under OCGA § 10-12-5 (b). Although the trial court did not expressly rule 31 on this issue, it implicitly found the GUETA to be applicable by applying OCGA § 10-12-7 to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.