Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Code 1933, § 109A-2 - 106, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1; Ga. L. 2002, p. 415, § 11.)
The 2002 amendment, effective April 18, 2002, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "canceling" for "cancelling" in subsection (4).
- For article, "Buyer's Right of Rejection: A Quarter Century Under the Uniform Commercial Code, and Recent International Developments," see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 805 (1979). For article, "Computer Software: Does Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code Apply?," see 35 Emory L.J. 853 (1986). For comment on Fender v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 138 Ga. App. 31, 225 S.E.2d 691 (1976), see 28 Mercer L. Rev. 751 (1977).
Oral agreement between manufacturer and distributor for the manufacture of a special grade of fertilizer to be sold by the distributor was covered by the UCC whether it was classified as one for the sale of fertilizer or as a distributorship agreement. PCS Joint Venture, Ltd. v. Davis, 219 Ga. App. 519, 465 S.E.2d 713 (1995).
Contracts for future delivery of commodities where parties contemplate actual delivery are valid. Taunton v. Allenberg Cotton Co., 378 F. Supp. 34 (M.D. Ga. 1973).
- Contract for sale of crops is not invalid merely because it was executed before crop in question was planted. Mitchell-Huntley Cotton Co. v. Lawson, 377 F. Supp. 661 (M.D. Ga. 1973).
Cited in Byrd v. Moore Ford Co., 116 Ga. App. 292, 157 S.E.2d 41 (1967); R.N. Kelly Cotton Merchant, Inc. v. York, 379 F. Supp. 1075 (M.D. Ga. 1973); Sylvester Motor & Tractor Co. v. Farmers Bank, 153 Ga. App. 614, 266 S.E.2d 293 (1980); International Harvester Credit Corp. v. Associates Fin. Servs. Co., 133 Ga. App. 488, 211 S.E.2d 430 (1974); Redfern Meats, Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 134 Ga. App. 381, 215 S.E.2d 10 (1975); Cone Mills Corp. v. A.G. Estes, Inc., 399 F. Supp. 938 (N.D. Ga. 1975); Fender v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 138 Ga. App. 31, 225 S.E.2d 691 (1976); Sylvester Motor & Tractor Co. v. Farmers Bank, 153 Ga. App. 614, 266 S.E.2d 293 (1980); Johnson v. State, 154 Ga. App. 353, 268 S.E.2d 406 (1980); Madewell v. Marietta Dodge, Inc., 506 F. Supp. 286 (N.D. Ga. 1980); Freeman v. State, 163 Ga. App. 71, 292 S.E.2d 563 (1982); American Whse. & Moving Serv. of Atlanta, Inc. v. Floyd's Diesel Serv., Inc., 164 Ga. App. 106, 296 S.E.2d 64 (1982); Robinson v. State, 164 Ga. App. 652, 297 S.E.2d 751 (1982); Mail Concepts, Inc. v. Foote & Davies, Inc., 200 Ga. App. 778, 409 S.E.2d 567 (1991).
- Promise to buy certain goods is good consideration for promise to sell those goods. Mitchell-Huntley Cotton Co. v. Lawson, 377 F. Supp. 661 (M.D. Ga. 1973).
- Where defendant offered to pay in future for goods to be delivered presently, and seller agreed, delivered the merchandise to defendant, and did not retain any security interest therein, there was a completed "sale" of the goods in question, and defendant had not only rightful possession of the items, but title to them as well. Elliott v. State, 149 Ga. App. 579, 254 S.E.2d 900 (1979).
- Lease agreement for automobile, even though it places burden of repairs, taxes, insurance, etc., upon lessee is not a sale under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-106. Mays v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 132 Ga. App. 602, 208 S.E.2d 614 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Mock v. Canterbury Realty Co., 152 Ga. App. 872, 264 S.E.2d 489 (1980).
- Although a warranty of merchantability was implied in any sale of goods under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-314, the warranty only ran to a buyer in privity of contract with the seller and did not pass to a second or subsequent purchaser; thus, buyers who were not placed on the title and the title transferees had no cause of action against the seller under Georgia law under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-106(1) for breach of implied warranties because of their lack of privity as original purchasers. Gill v. Blue Bird Body Co., F.3d (11th Cir. June 17, 2005).
An agreement for the installation and maintenance of a protective alarm system was not a sale and, as a result, the implied warranty and other U.C.C. considerations were not applicable. D.L. Lee & Sons v. ADT Sec. Sys., 916 F. Supp. 1571 (S.D. Ga. 1995).
- Nonconformity cannot be viewed as a question of the quantity and quality of goods alone or of breaches of warranties, but of the performance of the totality of the seller's contractual undertaking. Esquire Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Arrendale, 182 Ga. App. 528, 356 S.E.2d 250 (1987).
- Descriptions of sales of goods in O.C.G.A. §§ 11-2-105 and11-2-106 do not cover advertising transactions, which are more like sales intended to give public notice; as opposed to a sale of goods, it is a contract for work, labor, and materials. 1972 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 72-96.
- 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 26, 27.
- 77A C.J.S., Sales, §§ 3, 4.
- Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2-106.
- What constitutes a contract for sale under Uniform Commercial Code § 2-314, 78 A.L.R.3d 696.
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.
Total Results: 2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2009-04-28
Citation: 676 S.E.2d 169, 285 Ga. 288, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 1483, 68 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 607, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 142
Snippet: 567 S.E.2d 61 (2002). See also OCGA §§ 11-2-102, 11-2-106(1). Thus, the implied warranties of the UCC arise
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1985-01-09
Citation: 324 S.E.2d 462, 253 Ga. 698, 40 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 408, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 554
Snippet: future time" and is a "contract for sale." OCGA § 11-2-106 (1); Redfern Meats v. Hertz Corp., 134 Ga. App