Claim for breach of warranty is assignable.

- An assignment of a claim for an existing breach of warranty is specifically authorized by O.C.G.A. § 11-2-210(2). Irvin v. Lowe's of Gainesville, Inc., 165 Ga. App. 828, 302 S.E.2d 734 (1983).

While a warranty cannot be assigned, the Uniform Commercial Code, O.C.G.A. § 11-1-101 et seq., does authorize the assignment of a purchaser's claim for an existing breach of the warranty - this assignment of the purchaser's claim, indeed, is expressly authorized by O.C.G.A. § 11-2-210(2) - any language, however informal, will be sufficient to constitute a legal assignment, if it shows the intention of the owner of the right to transfer it instantly, so that it will be the property of the transferee. Plaintiff's subrogation receipts clearly constituted sufficient evidence of a legal assignment of the implied warranty claim. Kraft Reinsurance Ir., Ltd. v. Pallets Acquisitions, LLC, F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2011).

Warranty is not assignable.

- The case of Stewart v. Gainesville Glass Co., 131 Ga. App. 747, 206 S.E.2d 857 (1974), aff'd, 233 Ga. 578, 212 S.E.2d 377 (1975), does not hold that a claim for breach of warranty may not be assigned but holds merely that the warranty itself may not be assigned. Irvin v. Lowe's of Gainesville, Inc., 165 Ga. App. 828, 302 S.E.2d 734 (1983).

In sale of personal property, warranty is not negotiable or assignable and does not run with article sold. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 519 F. Supp. 60 (S.D. Ga. 1981).

Any assignment of warranties materially changes risks and burdens of original seller under terms of O.C.G.A. § 11-2-210. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 519 F. Supp. 60 (S.D. Ga. 1981).

Assignment of joint savings account.

- Once savings account has been assigned to third party, joint owners cannot withdraw funds from said account without permission of assignee unless one waives or releases assignment. Copeland v. Peachtree Bank & Trust Co., 150 Ga. App. 262, 257 S.E.2d 353 (1979).

Repudiation of subcontract.

- Trial court could not have properly granted summary judgment against a general contractor by reason of its apparent acquiescence in a subcontractor's breach of the subcontract by reason of its assignment because the contractor testified that it had a substantial interest in maintaining the subcontractor as the performer of the subcontract under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-210(1), and that it looked for, but was unable to retain, any other asphalt provider besides the assignee; the subcontractor could not prevail on summary judgment in the wake of its repudiation of the subcontract, including the provision not to delegate performance. Western Sur. Co. v. APAC-Southeast, Inc., 302 Ga. App. 654, 691 S.E.2d 234, cert. denied, No. S10C1140, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 673 (Ga. 2010).

Cited in Mingledorff's, Inc. v. Hicks, 133 Ga. App. 27, 209 S.E.2d 661 (1974); Greene v. Citizens & S. Bank, 134 Ga. App. 73, 213 S.E.2d 175 (1975); Crider v. First Nat'l Bank, 144 Ga. App. 536, 241 S.E.2d 638 (1978); Callaway Blue Springs, LLLP v. West Basin Capital, LLC, 341 Ga. App. 535, 801 S.E.2d 325 (2017).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 6 Am. Jur. 2d, Assignments, §§ 21 et seq., 113 et seq., 133, 161, 162. 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 375-386. 68A Am. Jur. 2d, Secured Transactions, §§ 434 et seq., 569 et seq.

6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:75.

C.J.S.

- 77A C.J.S., Sales, §§ 88, 89.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2-210.

ALR.

- Assignability of contract to furnish all of buyer's requirement or to take all of seller's output, 39 A.L.R. 1192.

Rights and duties in respect of property as between seller and seller's assignee on conditional sale of property, 65 A.L.R. 783.

Agreement or order to pay obligations out of the proceeds of any sale or mortgage of property that may be made, as creating an equitable assignment of such proceeds, 101 A.L.R. 81.