O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-2-203 (2019)

Seals inoperative

✓ 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

The affixing of a seal to a writing evidencing a contract for sale or an offer to buy or sell goods does not constitute the writing a sealed instrument and the law with respect to sealed instruments does not apply to such a contract or offer.

History

Code 1933, § 109A-2-203, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1.

Annotations

Cross references. Legal status of contracts under seal generally, § 13-1-4.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 17A Am. Jur. 2d, Contracts, § 116. 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 106, 107. C.J.S. 77A C.J.S., Sales, § 1 et seq. 78A C.J.S., Seals, §§ 1, 2.

U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2203. ALR. Necessity of consideration to support option under seal, 2 A.L.R. 631; 21 A.L.R. 137.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: McLean v. Gray, 350 S.E.2d 815 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McLean v. Gray, 350 S.E.2d 815 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff’s contention that the UCC limitation period does not apply to contracts under seal conflicts squarely with OCGA § 11-2-203, which provides as follows: “The affixing of a seal to a writing evidencing a contract for sale or an offer to buy or sell goods does not…”

Alimenta (u.s.a.), Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 861 F.2d 650 (11th Cir. 1988). “, honesty in fact, O.C.G.A. § 11-2-203, may have been helpful to the jury, the failure to give such a charge, viewing the instructions as a whole, was not error.”

Premier Petroleum, Inc. v. Heer, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “After making a determination of unconscionablity, OCGA § 11-2-203 (1) explicitly gives the trial court discretion to refuse to enforce the contract — “the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause,…”

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.