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

O.C.G.A. § 11-1-102 (2019)

Scope of article

✓ 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

This article shall apply to a transaction to the extent that it is governed by another article of this title. tive January 1, 2016, redesignated former Code Section 11-1-102 as present Code Section 11-1-103.

History

Code 1981, § 11-1-102, enacted by Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 3A-1/SB 65.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 3A-1/SB 65, effec-

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Ole Mexican Foods, Inc. v. Hanson Staple Co., 676 S.E.2d 169 (Ga. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ole Mexican Foods, Inc. v. Hanson Staple Co., 676 S.E.2d 169 (Ga. 2009). · cites it 8× “Those purposes and policies are (a) To simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (b) To permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; [and] (c) To make uniform the law among the…”
Hopkins v. First Union Bank, 387 S.E.2d 144 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “) These results are compatible with public policy, as “public policy is clearly in favor of a rule that an oral protest is sufficient to foreclose non-judicial possession because it does not beckon the repossessing creditor to the brink of violence.”
Bank of Cave Spring v. Gold Kist, Inc., 327 S.E.2d 800 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Article 9 of this Title, captioned “Secured Transactions; Sales of Accounts and Chattel Paper,” applies “to any sale of accounts or chattel paper” and “to security interests created by contract including .”
Kubota Tractor Corp. v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 403 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 11-1-102 (1). The purpose and effect of the security agreement and the financial statement differ and this difference must be accorded due consideration.”
Thomas v. Ralston Purina Co. (In Re Thomas), 43 B.R. 201 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1984). · cites it 2× “22 in milk proceeds at issue in this adversary proceeding was realized after the assignment was released, the Court need not decide whether the “Assignment of Proceeds from the Sale of Dairy Products and Release of Security Interest” served to release FmHA’s security interest in…”
Carter v. Tokai Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 S.E.2d 638 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). “The provisions of §§ 527 and 528 regarding damages available upon default are applicable “[ejxcept as otherwise provided with respect to damages liquidated in the lease agreement (Code Section 11-2A-504) or otherwise determined pursuant to agreement of the parties (Code Sections…”
Venable v. Suntrust Bank, 780 S.E.2d 793 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Palmer, 219 A2d 858, 861 (NJ 1966).2 Of course, one of the purposes of adopting the Uniform Commercial Code was to “make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.”
Crossroads Bank of Georgia v. Corim, Inc., 418 S.E.2d 601 (Ga. 1992). · cites it 2× “Initially, the General Assembly enacted the uniform version of § 9-310 of the UCC, thereby giving priority over perfected security interests to liens securing claims arising from work intended to enhance or preserve the value of the collateral.”
McClintock v. Wellington Trade, Inc., 371 S.E.2d 893 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “OCGA §§ 11-1-102 (3); 11-1-107. Furthermore, OCGA § 11-9-505 (2) allows a debtor to renounce or modify his rights by signing a statement after default.”
Dalton Point, L.P. v. Regions Bank, Inc., 651 S.E.2d 549 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “While the resolution purports to permit this action, the company argues, it is unenforceable because it impermissibly relieves the bank of its duty to act in good faith and exercise due care when handling its account, in violation of OCGA § 11-1-102 (3). That statute provides:…”
Jamsky v. HPSC, INC., 519 S.E.2d 246 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). “The provisions of §§ 527 and 528 regarding damages available upon default are applicable “(e)xcept as otherwise provided with respect to damages liquidated in the lease agreement (Code Section 11-2A-504) or otherwise determined pursuant to agreement of the parties (Code Sections…”
Dixie Amusement, LLC v. Primero Games, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “Even though the purchase of software was involved in the transactions between the parties, we nonetheless find that the predominant purpose of the transaction was the purchase of goods; thus, the UCC applies.”
— 11-1-102(3) — 1 case
Thomas v. Ralston Purina Co. (In Re Thomas), 43 B.R. 201 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1984). “22 in milk proceeds at issue in this adversary proceeding was realized after the assignment was released, the Court need not decide whether the “Assignment of Proceeds from the Sale of Dairy Products and Release of Security Interest” served to release FmHA’s security interest in…”
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.