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

O.C.G.A. § 11-1-101 (2019)

Short titles

✓ 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 Title 11 shall be known as and may be cited as the “Uniform Commercial Code.” (b) This article shall be known as and may be cited as the “Uniform Commercial Code - General Provisions.” Law reviews. For article, “The Good Faith Purchase Idea and the Uniform Commercial Code,” see 15 Ga. L. Rev. 605 (1981).

History

Code 1933, § 109A-1-101, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1; Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 3A-1/SB 65.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS under O.C.G.A. § 11-1-101. Jacobs v. Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 125 Ga. App. 462, 188 S.E.2d 250, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1370 (1972).

Effect of prior case law. - Cases dealing with rescission and with measure of damages for breach of warranty decided prior to the adoption O.C.G.A. § 11-1-101 in 1962 are not controlling in cases arising

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 11 Am. Jur. 2d, Bills and Notes, § 5. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 1:1. C.J.S. 82 C.J.S., Statutes, §§ 217 et seq., 238. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 1101.

ALR. Recognition of action for damages for wrongful foreclosure - general views, 81 A.L.R.6th 161. Recognition of action for damages for wrongful foreclosure - types of actions, 82 A.L.R.6th 43.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: Sun Nurseries, Inc. v. Lake Erma, LLC, 730 S.E.2d 556 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sun Nurseries, Inc. v. Lake Erma, LLC, 730 S.E.2d 556 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Under Georgia’s Uniform Commercial Code, OCGA § 11-1-101 et seq., the holder of a check is entitled to negotiate it, and a holder is one who has possession of the check.”
NEC Tech., Inc. v. Nelson, 478 S.E.2d 769 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 2× “The Uniform Commercial Code and the Georgia UCC, see OCGA § 11-1-101 et seq., contain no definition of “unconscionability.”
Wright v. Safari Club Int'l, Inc., 745 S.E.2d 730 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “8 Likewise, *491 as Wright himself argues, this case does not come within the purview of Georgia’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), OCGA § 11-1-101 et seq., and we are not bound to analyze the viability of the disclaimers under those provisions.”
Loy's Off. Supplies, Inc. v. Steelcase, Inc., 331 S.E.2d 75 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Appellant invokes certain provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, OCGA § 11-1-101 et seq. However, the agreement underlying this suit was not one governed by the provisions of that statute.”
Skott v. Bank of Am. Illinois, 468 S.E.2d 359 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 4× “…now known as Bank of America, on July 22, 1994. Bank of America Illinois currently holds the security deed. [1] OCGA § 11-1-101, et seq.”
Jackson Elec. Membership Corp. v. Georgia Power Co., 364 S.E.2d 556 (Ga. 1988). · cites it 2× “3 Compare Uniform Commercial Code, OCGA § 11-1-101 et seq., “[ejvery contract or duty within this title imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement.”
Decatur North Assocs., Ltd. v. Builders Glass, Inc., 350 S.E.2d 795 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Such warranties are controlled by the statutory provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), OCGA § 11-1-101 et seq. Although the UCC does provide for a limited exception to the privity of contract requirement in connection with an ex delicto action for breach of warranty,…”
Exec. Cars, LLC v. W. Funding, II, Inc., 826 S.E.2d 370 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 11-1-101. 5 Our holding in Charles Evans BMW is in accord with a number of other jurisdictions that have been presented with the question of whether one in possession of stolen goods can assert the defense of voidable title or entrustment under § 403.”
City of Bremen v. Regions Bank, 559 S.E.2d 440 (Ga. 2002). · cites it 2× “Even when viewed in a light most favorable to the City, 21 there are no disputed material facts regarding the City’s obligations under the note, and as a matter of law, Regions Bank is entitled to recover the loan proceeds secured by the note. It follows that the trial court…”
In Re DILLARD FORD, INC., Debtor. William E. WOODRUM, Tr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO., Defendant-Appellant, 940 F.2d 1507 (11th Cir. 1991). “Both parties agree that this transaction is governed by Georgia’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code which is found at Ga.Code Ann. § 11-1-101 et seq. Because Georgia’s version is to be read "liberally” in order to promote uniform law "among the various jurisdictions,” Ga.”
Agricommodities, Inc. v. J. D. Heiskell & Co., 676 S.E.2d 847 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Since this case involves the sale of goods and not services, it is controlled by Georgia’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), OCGA § 11-1-101 et seq. With regard to formation of a contract in general under the UCC, OCGA § 11-2-204 provides as follows: (1) A contract for sale of…”
Franklin v. Augusta Dodge, Inc., 652 S.E.2d 862 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “The trial court erred in granting the defense motions for directed verdict on Franklin’s revocation of acceptance claim, which is controlled by the Uniform Commercial Code as codified at OCGA § 11-1-101 et seq. Under OCGA § 11-2-608 (1), [t]he buyer may revoke his acceptance of…”
Show all 27 citing cases →
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.