O.C.G.A. § 11-2-509 (2019)
Risk of loss in the absence of breach
(1) Where the contract requires or authorizes the seller to ship the goods by carrier: (a) If it does not require him to deliver them at a particular
destination, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly delivered to the carrier even though the shipment is under reservation (Code Section 11-2-505); but (b) If it does require him to deliver them at a particular destination and the goods are there duly tendered while in the possession of the carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are there duly so tendered as to enable the buyer to take delivery. (2) Where the goods are held by a bailee to be delivered without being moved, the risk of loss passes to the buyer: (a) On his or her receipt of possession or control of a negotiable document of title covering the goods; or (b) On acknowledgment by the bailee of the buyer’s right to possession of the goods; or (c) After his or her receipt of possession or control of a nonnegotiable document of title or other direction to deliver in a record, as provided in subsection (4)(b) of Code Section 11-2-503. (3) In any case not within subsection (1) or (2) of this Code section, the risk of loss passes to the buyer on his receipt of the goods if the seller is a merchant; otherwise the risk passes to the buyer on tender of delivery. (4) The provisions of this Code section are subject to contrary agreement of the parties and to the provisions of this article on sale on approval (Code Section 11-2-327) and on effect of breach on risk of loss (Code Section 11-2-510).
History
Code 1933, § 109A-2-509, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1; Ga. L. 1963, p. 188, § 3; Ga. L. 2010, p. 481, § 2-10/HB 451.
Annotations
Cross references. Insurance of agricultural products stored or deposited in public warehouses, § 10-4-25. Bailments generally, § 44-12-40 et seq. Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2010, p. 481, § 3-1/HB 451, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: “This Act applies to a document of title that is issued or a bailment that arises on or after the effective date of this Act. This Act does not apply to a document of title that is issued or a bailment that arises before the effective date of this Act even if the document of title or bailment would be subject to this Act if the
document of title had been issued or bailment had arisen on or after the effective date of this Act. This Act does not apply to a right of action that has accrued before the effective date of this Act.” This Act became effective May 27, 2010. Ga. L. 2010, p. 481, § 3-2/HB 451, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: “A document of title issued or a bailment that arises before the effective date of this Act and the rights, documents, and interests flowing from that document or bailment are governed by any statute or other rule amended or repealed by this Act as if such amendment or repeal had not occurred and may be terminated, completed, consummated, or enforced under that statute or other rule.” This Act became effective May 27, 2010. Law reviews. For article, “Impracticability As Risk Allocation: The Effect of Changed Circum-
stances 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, § 96-108 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Provision regarding delays or damage beyond vendor’s control. - Where the contract of sale provided that “vendor shall not be held liable for any loss or damage arising from delays or damages caused by fire or strikes, delays in transportation, or other causes beyond vendor’s control,” this stipulation is not such an agreement as would come within proviso of former Code 1933, § 96-108, “unless it is otherwise agreed in the contract of sale.” Wood v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 199 Ga. 461, 34 S.E.2d 688, 1945 Ga. LEXIS 337
(1945) (decided under former Code 1933, § 96-108). Risk of loss did not transfer. - Jury properly determined that the defendant did not bear the loss of a helicopter crash because there was some evidence upon which the jury could rely in concluding that the defendant did not breach the agreement between the parties and the jury made a special finding that under the aircraft purchase agreement, the risk of loss remained with the plaintiff despite the defendant agreeing to make additional repairs when the helicopter arrived at the helicopter’s final destination. Eagle Jets, LLC v. Atlanta Jet, Inc., 321 Ga. App. 386, 740 S.E.2d 439, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 321 (2013).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 412, 419-427. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:475. C.J.S. 77A C.J.S., Sales, § 214. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2509. ALR. Provisions of sales contract relating to
party to bear the loss from insolvency of or breach of contract by bank through which paper representing price is routed for collection, 99 A.L.R. 1472. Loss on goods shipped as proratable between carrier’s insurer and shipper’s insurer, 169 A.L.R. 666. Upon whom loss from theft or the like falls, where seller turns over goods at buyer’s premises, 50 A.L.R.2d 330. Who bears risk of loss of goods under UCC § 2-509 and § 2-510, 66 A.L.R.3d 145.