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

O.C.G.A. § 11-1-205 (2019)

Reasonable time; seasonableness

✓ 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) Whether a time for taking any action required by this title is reasonable depends on the nature, purpose, and circumstances of such action.

(b) An action is taken “seasonably” if it is taken at or within the time agreed, or if no time is agreed, at or within a reasonable time.

History

Code 1933, § 109A-1-204, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1; Code 1981, § 111-205, as redesignated by Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 3A-1/SB 65.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Former Code Section 11-1-205, pertain-

ing to course of dealing and usage of trade, was repealed by Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 3A-1/SB 65, effective January 1, 2016. The former Code section was based on Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS “Reasonable time” does not mean “immediately.” Trailmobile Div. of Pullman, Inc. v. Jones, 118 Ga. App. 472, 164 S.E.2d 346, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1434 (1968); Solomon Refrigeration, Inc. v. Osburn, 148 Ga. App. 772, 252 S.E.2d 686, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1653 (1979). What is a reasonable time is ordinarily a matter of fact to be determined by jury under particular circumstances of the case. Trailmobile Div. of Pullman, Inc. v. Jones, 118 Ga. App. 472, 164 S.E.2d 346, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1434 (1968); Solomon Refrigeration, Inc. v. Osburn, 148 Ga. App. 772, 252 S.E.2d 686, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1653 (1979). Notice of rejection not reasonable under circumstances involved. - Economy Forms Corp. v. Kandy, Inc., 391

F. Supp. 944, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9221 (N.D. Ga. 1974), aff’d, 511 F.2d 1400 (5th Cir. 1975). One opportunity to cure was unreasonable. - Motor coach buyer’s revocation of acceptance claim under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608(1)(b) failed because the buyer’s providing only one opportunity to repair before the extent of the defect was truly apparent was not reasonable under O.C.G.A. § 11-1-204; the futility exception to providing an opportunity to cure did not apply because there was no evidence that the buyer knew prior to revocation that the seller would have been unable to repair the coach. Car Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Blue Bird Body Co., 322 Fed. Appx. 891, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7661 (11th Cir. 2009).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 15A Am. Jur. 2d, Commercial Code, §§ 26, 117. 17A Am. Jur. 2d, Contracts, §§ 478, 479. 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, § 72. C.J.S. 86 C.J.S., Time, § 4. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 1204. ALR. Constitutionality of statute regulating time-measuring instruments or devices, 37 A.L.R. 134.

Time for exercise of reserved option to terminate, cancel, or rescind contract, 164 A.L.R. 1014. Time within which buyer must make inspection, trial, or test to determine whether goods are of requisite quality, 52 A.L.R.2d 900. Time for revocation of acceptance of goods under UCC § 2-608(2), 65 A.L.R.3d 354.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1984–2010 · leading case: Unique Designs, Inc. v. Pittard Mach. Co., 409 S.E.2d 241 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Unique Designs, Inc. v. Pittard Mach. Co., 409 S.E.2d 241 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “Unique contends that the document evidencing the prior transaction, which consisted of ten pages containing a description of the accessory package to be included in the sale, as well as downpayment and financing terms, should have been admissible as evidence of a course of…”
Breckenridge Creste Apts., Ltd. v. Citicorp Mortg., Inc., 826 F. Supp. 460 (N.D. Ga. 1993). · cites it 4× “According to Georgia law, “[a] course of dealing is a sequence of previous conduct between the parties to a particular transaction which is fairly to be regarded as establishing a common basis of understanding for interpreting their expression and other conduct.”
Irvin Int'l, Inc. v. Riverwood Int'l Corp., 683 S.E.2d 158 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “5 OCGA§ 11-1-205 (1). 6 See Unique Designs v.”
Sharple v. Airtouch Cellular of Georgia, Inc., 551 S.E.2d 87 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “The Uniform Commercial Code explains: “A usage of trade is any practice or method of dealing having such regularity of observance in a place, vocation, or trade as to justify an expectation that it will be observed with respect to the transaction in question.”
Scovill Fasteners, Inc. v. N. Metals, Inc., 692 S.E.2d 840 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “memo-randa of the parties agree or which are otherwise set forth in a writing intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous…”
Weil Bros.-Cotton, Inc. v. T. E. A., Inc., 351 S.E.2d 670 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “See in this connection OCGA § 11-1-205 (2). Accordingly, the evidence was not admissible along that line.”
White & Assocs., Inc. v. Decker & Hallman, P.C., 416 S.E.2d 352 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “404, 406 (2) (b) ( 188 SE2d 108 ) (1972) (applying predecessor to OCGA § 11-1-205), it is well established that “ ‘[w]here there is no contract, proof of usage will not make one.”
Trebor Corp. v. Nutmeg Indus., Inc., 431 S.E.2d 402 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “)” OCGA § 11-1-205 (3), which allows evidence of a course of dealing between parties and any usage of trade to give particular meaning to and supplement or qualify terms of an agreement, is predicated upon the existence of an underlying agreement.”
Georgia Casulaty & Sur. Co. v. Tennille Banking Co. (In Re Smith), 51 B.R. 904 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1985). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff argues that this established a pattern or practice of paying such checks.”
All Angles Constr. & Demolition, Inc. v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 539 S.E.2d 831 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 11-1-205 (2) provides, in pertinent part: A usage of trade is any practice or method of dealing having such regularity of observance in a place, vocation, or trade as to justify an expectation that it will be observed with respect to the transaction in question.”
Outdoor Displays Welding & Fabrication, Inc. v. U.S. Enter., Inc. (In re Outdoor Displays Welding & Fabrication, Inc.), 84 B.R. 260 (D. Ga. 1988). · cites it 3× “§ 11-2-202 and § 11-1-205 in establishing the applicable usage of trade.”
Robert E. Ricciardelli Carpet Serv., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2d 192 (D. Mass. 2010). “” Ga.Code Ann. § 11-1-205(4). Even assuming that Home Depot’s February termination letter was facially defective, Ricciardelli testified that he was made aware in a letter of January 2, 2007, of Home Depot’s intention to terminate RER’s contract.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— 11-1-205(1) — 2 cases
Breckenridge Creste Apts., Ltd. v. Citicorp Mortg., Inc., 826 F. Supp. 460 (N.D. Ga. 1993). “According to Georgia law, “[a] course of dealing is a sequence of previous conduct between the parties to a particular transaction which is fairly to be regarded as establishing a common basis of understanding for interpreting their expression and other conduct.”
Georgia Casulaty & Sur. Co. v. Tennille Banking Co. (In Re Smith), 51 B.R. 904 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1985). “Plaintiff argues that this established a pattern or practice of paying such checks.”
— 11-1-205(2) — 1 case
Outdoor Displays Welding & Fabrication, Inc. v. U.S. Enter., Inc. (In re Outdoor Displays Welding & Fabrication, Inc.), 84 B.R. 260 (D. Ga. 1988). “§ 11-2-202 and § 11-1-205 in establishing the applicable usage of trade.”
— 11-1-205(4) — 2 cases
Breckenridge Creste Apts., Ltd. v. Citicorp Mortg., Inc., 826 F. Supp. 460 (N.D. Ga. 1993). “According to Georgia law, “[a] course of dealing is a sequence of previous conduct between the parties to a particular transaction which is fairly to be regarded as establishing a common basis of understanding for interpreting their expression and other conduct.”
Robert E. Ricciardelli Carpet Serv., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2d 192 (D. Mass. 2010). “” Ga.Code Ann. § 11-1-205(4). Even assuming that Home Depot’s February termination letter was facially defective, Ricciardelli testified that he was made aware in a letter of January 2, 2007, of Home Depot’s intention to terminate RER’s contract.”
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.