Employee charging gasoline in employer's name.

- Employee is not a "buyer," but acts as agent of employer when employee charges gasoline in employer's name and employer pays for it, even though the fuel is not delivered directly to employer but is instead consumed by employee's operation of a truck. Weaver v. Ralston Motor Hotel, Inc., 135 Ga. App. 536, 218 S.E.2d 260 (1975).

"Good Faith."

- The definition of "good faith" in O.C.G.A. § 11-2-103 applies only to merchants engaged in the sale of goods and does not apply in an action involving the status of a bank as a "holder in due course" under UCC Article 3. Choo Choo Tire Serv., Inc v. Union Planters Nat'l Bank, 231 Ga. App. 346, 498 S.E.2d 799 (1998).

Motor home seller's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law was denied because the buyers presented sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict in their favor as to the state law breach of implied warranty claims as the buyers presented evidence showing that they were the real buyers of the motor home even though the legal transaction was done in the name of a corporate entity and the seller could not challenge the buyers' standing to assert breach of warranty claims because the seller assured the buyers that they were covered under the motor home's warranty and that the warranty was being honored; testimony of the seller's service manager, that the buyers were entitled to the benefits of the warranty, was sufficient to establish that they were "buyers" under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-103. Gill v. Bluebird Body Co., F. Supp. 2d (M.D. Ga. Jan. 21, 2005).

Consumers, whose O.C.G.A. § 11-2-103 claim for breach of express warranty was unsuccessful, but whose claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability was successful, were entitled to reasonable attorney's fees based upon a rate that was about average for other consumer law attorneys in Georgia; however, the number of compensable hours was reduced to exclude work done on the unsuccessful claims. Gill v. Bluebird Body Co., 353 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 28, 2005).

No support for limitations.

- When plaintiff Jobber petroleum distributors' only allegations of wrongdoing was defendant oil company's purported recapture of the cost of a prompt-pay discount when setting its price, and the parties' contract imposed no limits on the costs that could be recouped in setting the price, the good-faith safe harbor provided in O.C.G.A. § 11-2-305(2) applied; O.C.G.A. § 11-2-103 did not support imposing fundamental substantive limitations on the pricing methodology set out in the contract. Autry Petroleum Co. v. BP Prods. North America, Inc., F.3d (11th Cir. June 26, 2009)(Unpublished).

Cited in Tennessee-Virginia Constr. Co. v. Willingham, 117 Ga. App. 290, 160 S.E.2d 444 (1968); Redfern Meats, Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 134 Ga. App. 381, 215 S.E.2d 10 (1975); Fratelli Gardino v. Caribbean Lumber Co., 587 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1979); Mail Concepts, Inc. v. Foote & Davies, Inc., 200 Ga. App. 778, 409 S.E.2d 567 (1991); Imex Int'l v. Wires Eng'g, 261 Ga. App. 329, 583 S.E.2d 117 (2003).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 15A Am. Jur. 2d, Commercial Code, §§ 36, 52. 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 10-15.

C.J.S.

- 77A C.J.S., Sales, § 1 et seq. 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 309.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2-103.

ALR.

- What constitutes a transaction, a contract for sale, or a sale within the scope of UCC Article 2, 4 A.L.R.4th 85.

What constitutes "goods" within the scope of UCC Article 2, 4 A.L.R.4th 912.

Applicability of UCC Article 2 to mixed contracts for sale of goods and services, 5 A.L.R.4th 501.