When section applicable.

- Only where all traditional criteria are met showing that contract was made does O.C.G.A. § 11-2-207 become applicable. Duval & Co. v. Malcom, 233 Ga. 784, 214 S.E.2d 356 (1975).

Material alteration.

- A jurisdiction clause making the law of New York applicable to the transaction constitutes a material alteration and does not become part of the contract. Sweetapple Plastics, Inc. v. Philip Shuman & Sons, 77 Bankr. 304 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1987).

Purchase order as contract.

- Where the purchase order from a general contractor contained terms at variance with the initial proposal from the subcontractor, and following receipt of the purchase order, the subcontractor lodged no objection to its terms, but proceeded to manufacture the parts ordered and sent a supervisor to the job site, the trial court did not err in finding that the purchase order (including the plans and specs), rather than the proposal, constituted the contract between the parties. American Aluminum Prods. Co. v. Binswanger Glass Co., 194 Ga. App. 703, 391 S.E.2d 688 (1990).

Options incorporated into contract.

- Where the options reserved in the letter of intent did not expressly make the acceptance of plaintiff's offer conditional and did not demonstrate a lack of contractual intent, they became a part of the contract. J. Lee Gregory, Inc. v. Scandinavian House, 209 Ga. App. 285, 433 S.E.2d 687 (1993).

Written agreement, rather than oral agreement, was contract to be followed.

- Jury's finding that the aircraft purchase agreement (APA), rather than an oral agreement, was the contract between the parties was supported by the evidence because the plaintiff's own complaint asserted that the APA was the agreement between the parties and the Uniform Commercial Code, specifically O.C.G.A. § 11-2-207, requires the writing to be followed. Eagle Jets, LLC v. Atlanta Jet, Inc., 321 Ga. App. 386, 740 S.E.2d 439 (2013).

Objection requirements of O.C.G.A. §§ 11-2-201(2),11-2-202, and11-2-207 applied to work orders issued by a home improvement store to a contractor for the purchase of carpeting because the contractor's installation service was incidental to the purchase of carpeting by the store's customers. On the other hand, change orders that dealt with services that the contractor was asked to provide over and above the initial installation of the carpeting were not subject to the requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code. Ricciardelli v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., F. Supp. 2d (DC Jan. 15, 2009).

Cited in Frey v. Friendly Motors, Inc., 129 Ga. App. 636, 200 S.E.2d 467 (1973); Pirrone v. Monarch Wine Co., 497 F.2d 25 (5th Cir. 1974); Ewing Bros. v. Ball Computer Prods., Inc., 148 Ga. App. 410, 251 S.E.2d 347 (1978).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 153-174.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2-207.

ALR.

- Circumstances supporting inference of original offerer's acceptance of counteroffer or assent to conditions attached by offeree to his acceptance, 135 A.L.R. 821.

Difference between offer and acceptance as regards place of payment or of delivery as variance preventing consummation of contract, 3 A.L.R.2d 256.

What are additional terms materially altering contract within meaning of UCC § 2-207(2)(b), 72 A.L.R.3d 479.

Farmers as "merchants" within provisions of UCC Article 2, dealing with sales, 95 A.L.R.3d 484.

What constitutes acceptance "expressly made conditional" converting it to rejection and counteroffer under UCC § 2-207 (1), 22 A.L.R.4th 939.