Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity between the provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 96-101 are included in the annotations for this section.

Necessity to show agreement on price.

- Contract, if otherwise sufficient, need not show that there has been an agreement on price. Jackson v. Meadows, 153 Ga. App. 1, 264 S.E.2d 503 (1980).

If contracts do not specify price, O.C.G.A. § 11-2-305 requires that price be "reasonable." Spartan Grain & Mill Co. v. Ayers, 517 F.2d 214 (5th Cir. 1975).

Price is not absolutely essential in contract for sale of goods. Peach State Meat Co. v. Excel Corp., 860 F. Supp. 849 (M.D. Ga. 1994).

Contract to sell water at fixed price.

- O.C.G.A. § 11-2-305 comes into play only where a contract for sale is concluded with an open-price term. Where water is offered for sale by a city at a fixed price and nonresident plaintiffs accept the offer at that fixed price, it cannot be said that the city sells water to plaintiffs pursuant to an open price term contract. Zepp v. Mayor of Athens, 180 Ga. App. 72, 348 S.E.2d 673 (1986).

Proof of price necessary to prove case concerning indebtedness.

- Price was one essential of contract for sale of goods giving rise to alleged indebtedness, which was denied by defendant in its answer, and proof of price, as amount sued for, was necessary to prove case as alleged; where evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant owed plaintiff any definite amount, as contract price of goods or as market value of goods, nonsuit was proper. Wolfe v. Brown-Wright Hotel Supply Corp., 87 Ga. App. 12, 73 S.E.2d 82 (1952) (decided under former Code 1933, § 96-101).

Good-faith safe harbor applied in petroleum distribution.

- When plaintiff Jobber petroleum distributors' only allegations of wrongdoing was defendant oil company's purported recapture of the cost of a prompt-pay discount when setting its price, and the parties' contract imposed no limits on the costs that could be recouped in setting the price, the good-faith safe harbor provided in O.C.G.A. § 11-2-305(2) applied; O.C.G.A. § 11-2-103 did not support imposing fundamental substantive limitations on the pricing methodology set out in the contract. Autry Petroleum Co. v. BP Prods. North America, Inc., F.3d (11th Cir. June 26, 2009)(Unpublished).

Cited in First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Olivetti Corp. of Am., 130 Ga. App. 896, 204 S.E.2d 781 (1974); Deck House, Inc. v. Scarborough, Sheffield & Gaston, Inc., 139 Ga. App. 173, 228 S.E.2d 142 (1976); Spartan Grain & Mill Co. v. Ayers, 581 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1978); Robinson v. Stevens Indus., Inc., 162 Ga. App. 132, 290 S.E.2d 336 (1982); Billings Cottonseed, Inc. v. Albany Oil Mill, Inc., 173 Ga. App. 825, 328 S.E.2d 426 (1985).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 213-223.

6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:107.

C.J.S.

- 77A C.J.S., Sales, § 94 et seq.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2-305.

ALR.

- Construction of "cost plus" contracts, 2 A.L.R. 126; 27 A.L.R. 48.

Validity and enforceability of contract which expressly leaves open terms of payment for future negotiation, 49 A.L.R. 1464.

Sale agreement fixing price at resale price less specified per cent as indefinite, 57 A.L.R. 747.

Validity of contract which leaves amount to be paid in performance thereof to promisor's determination, 92 A.L.R. 1396.

Validity of sales contract as affected by provision therein giving buyer power to control price to be paid for goods, 49 A.L.R.2d 508.

Construction and application of UCC § 2-305 dealing with open price term contracts, 91 A.L.R.3d 1237.

Electricity, gas, or water furnished by public utility or alternative supplier as "goods" within provisions of Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2 on sales, 97 A.L.R.6th 1.