Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448This article shall be known and may be cited as "Uniform Commercial Code - Sales."
(Code 1933, § 109A-2 - 101, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1.)
- For article, "The Good Faith Purchase Idea and the Uniform Commercial Code," see 15 Ga. L. Rev. 605 (1981). For comment, "Medical Expert Systems and Publisher Liability: A Cross-Contextual Analysis," see 43 Emory L.J. 731 (1994).
- Article 2 of the Georgia Commercial Code, O.C.G.A. § 11-2-101 et seq., applied to a contract because the sale of goods, the dirt which the seller offered to furnish to the buyer, was the predominant purpose of the contemplated transaction. Furthermore, the trial court did not err in putting the question of predominant purpose to the jury because the evidence permitted a rational jury to resolve this issue in a way that would lead to a conclusion that the sale of goods under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-107(1) was the predominant purpose of the contemplated transaction. Paramount Contr. Co. v. DPS Indus., 309 Ga. App. 113, 709 S.E.2d 288 (2011).
Cited in Rollins Communications, Inc. v. Georgia Inst. of Real Estate, Inc., 140 Ga. App. 448, 231 S.E.2d 397 (1976); Citicorp Indus. Credit, Inc. v. Rountree, 185 Ga. App. 417, 364 S.E.2d 65 (1987); Jones v. Baran Co., LLC, 290 Ga. App. 578, 660 S.E.2d 420 (2008).
- 15A Am. Jur. 2d, Commercial Code, § 69. 64 Am. Jur. 2d, Public Works and Contracts, § 17.
6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:2.
- 82 C.J.S., Statutes, §§ 217 et seq., 238.
- Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2-101.
- Preemption of strict liability in tort by provisions of UCC Article 2, 15 A.L.R.4th 791.
Impracticability of performance of sales contract under UCC § 2-615, 55 A.L.R.5th 1.
Total Results: 10
Court: N.D. Ga. | Date Filed: 2014-01-21T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 994 F. Supp. 2d 1296
Snippet: their aircraft. Article 2 of the UCC, O.C.G.A. § 11-2-101 et seq., applies “only to transactions in goods
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2008-03-26T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 660 S.E.2d 420, 290 Ga. App. 578
Snippet: #x27;s Uniform Commercial Code Sales (OCGA § 11-2-101 et seq.) and sought compensatory damages and attorney
Court: M.D. Ga. | Date Filed: 2007-05-01T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 485 F. Supp. 2d 1361
Snippet: sale of motor vehicles," cites O.C.G.A. § 11-2-101 and concludes that an "action for breach
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2006-02-09T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 277 Ga. App. 547, 627 S.E.2d 151
Snippet: under Georgia’s Uniform Commercial Code, OCGA§ 11-2-101 et seq.; and (2) that Rodgers’ Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2005-06-29T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 274 Ga. App. 89, 616 S.E.2d 865
Snippet: under the Uniform Commercial Code — Sales (OCGA§ 11-2-101 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1997-03-19T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 225 Ga. App. 606, 484 S.E.2d 341
Snippet: benefit? See, e.g., OCGA §§ 44-12-40 et seq.; 11-2-101 et seq.; 11-7-102 et seq.? (b) If appellant was
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1992-12-04T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 426 S.E.2d 648, 206 Ga. App. 794
Snippet: ;Uniform Commercial Code Sales," OCGA § 11-2-101 et seq. and particularly OCGA § 11-2-207. However
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1992-03-06T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 416 S.E.2d 833, 203 Ga. App. 447
Snippet: article of the Uniform Commercial Code (OCGA § 11-2-101 et seq.), and that the suit was barred by the
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1990-07-03T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 395 S.E.2d 650, 196 Ga. App. 230
Snippet: in the instant case. It is provisions of OCGA § 11-2-101 et seq. that are controlling here. OCGA § 11-2
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1987-11-23T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 364 S.E.2d 65, 185 Ga. App. 417
Snippet: transaction is thus within the ambit of OCGA § 11-2-101 et seq. However, it is clear that the lease is… of a security interest. [Cits.] Thus, [OCGA § 11-2-101 et seq.] does not apply and the parties'