O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-2-301 (2019)

General obligations of parties

✓ 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 obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver and that of the buyer is to accept and pay in accordance with the contract.

History

Code 1933, § 109A-2-301, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. For article, “Impracticability As Risk

Allocation: The Effect of Changed Circumstances upon Contract Obligations for the Sale of Goods,” see 22 Ga. L. Rev. 503 (1988).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 96-107 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Unexplained failure to deliver. - While delivery of property is not essential to passage of title to grantee, such delivery usually accompanies a transfer of title and absence of delivery calls for explanation. Failure to deliver property sold, when unexplained, is a badge of fraud, and a circumstance tending, when taken in connection with other circumstances, to show that title did not pass. Wallis v. Bellah, 59 Ga. App. 633, 1 S.E.2d 773, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 379 (1939) (decided under former Code 1933, § 96-107). Where plaintiff purchases machinery already in husband’s possession. - Where plaintiff purchased from defen-

dant certain farm machinery which had theretofore been purchased by her husband, to be used by him in operating a farm belonging to plaintiff, which machinery was in possession of her husband on farm, and parties did not contemplate that machinery was to be delivered to wife at any other place, there was no merit to contention that before plaintiff could be held liable on such contract of purchase it had to appear that defendant actually repossessed machinery from husband and thereafter made actual physical delivery to wife. Johnson v. Hinson, 188 Ga. 639, 4 S.E.2d 561, 1939 Ga. LEXIS 589 (1939) (decided under former Code 1933, § 96107).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 123-128. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:88. C.J.S. 77A C.J.S., Sales, §§ 158 et seq., 189, 197, 208 et seq.

U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2301. ALR. Duty of principal to fill orders under sales-agency contract, 52 A.L.R. 557. Inability of a seller of a commodity manufactured or produced by a third person to obtain the same from the latter as a

defense to an action by the buyer for breach of the contract, 80 A.L.R. 1177. Mutuality and enforceability of contract to furnish another with his needs, wants, desires, requirements and the like, of certain commodities, 26 A.L.R.2d 1139.

Repossession by secured seller as affecting his right to recover on note or other obligation given as a down payment, 49 A.L.R.3d 364.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700 F. Supp. 1574 (N.D. Ga. 1989).
Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700 F. Supp. 1574 (N.D. Ga. 1989). · cites it 2× “Finally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had breached its implied warranty under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-301, et seq. (Count III).”
Amatulli Imports, Inc. v. House of Persia, Inc., 383 S.E.2d 192 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 11-2-301. The undisputed evidence of record does show that appellant transferred and delivered the two shipments of rugs to appellee.”
Hydro Sys., Inc v. Factory Automation Sys., Inc (N.D. Ga. 2025). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 11-2-301 (“The obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver and that of the buyer is to accept and pay in accordance with the contract.”
L.O.D.C. Grp., Ltd v. Accelerate360, LLC (E.D. Tex. 2022). “, with O.C.G.A. §§ 11-2-301, 11-2-501, 11-2-601, and 11-2-701, et seq.”
Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 693 F. Supp. 1154 (N.D. Ga. 1988). · cites it 2× “Finally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had breached its implied warranty under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-301, et seq. (Count III).”
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.