O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-2-508 (2019)

Cure by seller of improper tender or delivery; replacement

✓ 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

(1) Where any tender or delivery by the seller is rejected because nonconforming and the time for performance has not yet expired, the seller may seasonably notify the buyer of his intention to cure and may then within the contract time make a conforming delivery.

(2) Where the buyer rejects a nonconforming tender which the seller had reasonable grounds to believe would be acceptable with or without money allowance the seller may if he seasonably notifies the buyer have a further reasonable time to substitute a conforming tender.

History

Code 1933, § 109A-2-508, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. For article, “Buyer’s Right of Rejection: A Quarter Century Under the Uniform Commercial Code, and Recent Interna-

tional Developments,” see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 805 (1979). For note, “David Tunick, Inc. v. Kornfield: Applying U.C.C. Section 2-716 and Uniqueness to a Section 2-508 Analysis,” see 45 Mercer L. Rev. 1407 (1994).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Manufacturer’s express warranty on a vehicle was not governed by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, specifically 15 U.S.C. § 2304, but was governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, O.C.G.A. §§ 11-2-508, 11-2-605, and 11-2607(3)(a) as the warranty was a limited warranty. Knight v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 272 Ga. App. 319, 612 S.E.2d 546, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 278 (2005).

Manufacturer did not breach its express warranty as the manufacturer addressed each defect in a vehicle as it arose, most repairs were made within days, and the only extended delay was the result of the buyer’s decision to postpone bringing the vehicle into the repair facility. Knight v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 272 Ga. App. 319, 612 S.E.2d 546, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 278 (2005).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 578-584. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:434. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2508.

ALR. Effect of premature tender of goods which is refused by the buyer, 47 A.L.R. 193. Seller’s cure of improper tender or delivery under UCC § 2-508, 36 A.L.R.4th 544.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1985–2005 · leading case: Knight v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 612 S.E.2d 546 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Knight v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 612 S.E.2d 546 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “at 65 (1) (a), citing OCGA §§ 11-2-508; 11-2-605; 11-2-607 (3) (a).”
McDonald v. Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., 603 S.E.2d 456 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “OCGA §§ 11-2-508; 11-2-605; 11-2-607 (3) (a).”
Hines v. Mercedes-benz USA, LLC, 358 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (N.D. Ga. 2005). · cites it 2× “When there is a written warranty that includes repair or replacement of parts, as here, two conditions of the warranty are notice of the defect and a reasonable opportunity to repair the defect before a breach of warranty can exist.”
Wolfes v. Terrell, 328 S.E.2d 569 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “because appellee did not seek the remedy of cure under OCGA § 11-2-508. The statute grants the remedy of cure to the seller of the goods (here appellant) and there was no evidence presented that appellant seasonably notified appellee *837 of appellant’s intention to utilize this…”
Great W. Press, Inc. v. Atlanta Film Converting Co., 479 S.E.2d 143 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 11-2-508 (1) only permits a seller to cure defects if the goods have been rejected and if “time for performance has not yet expired.”
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.