O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-2-510 (2019)

Effect of breach on risk of loss

✓ 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 a tender or delivery of goods so fails to conform to the contract as to give a right of rejection the risk of their loss remains on the seller until cure or acceptance. (2) Where the buyer rightfully revokes acceptance he may to the extent of any deficiency in his effective insurance coverage treat the risk of loss as having rested on the seller from the beginning. (3) Where the buyer as to conforming goods already identified to the contract for sale repudiates or is otherwise in breach before risk of their loss has passed to him, the seller may to the extent of any deficiency in

his effective insurance coverage treat the risk of loss as resting on the buyer for a commercially reasonable time.

History

Code 1933, § 109A-2-510, 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 No breach of contract established. - 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’s agreement to make additional repairs. 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, §§ 413, 428-430. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:487. C.J.S. 77A C.J.S., Sales, § 214. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2510. ALR. Applicability of provision in contract of sale for return of article, where article

delivered does not answer to description, 30 A.L.R. 321. 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. 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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2013–2013 · leading case: Eagle Jets, LLC v. Atlanta Jet, Inc., 740 S.E.2d 439 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
Eagle Jets, LLC v. Atlanta Jet, Inc., 740 S.E.2d 439 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 14× “See OCGA § 11-2-510 (1). Eagle Jets argues that it therefore had a right to reject the helicopter and that, consequently, AJI bore the risk of loss at the time of the crash.”
Eagle Jets LLC v. Atlanta Jet Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “This argument fails both under the APA and the UCC. (a) As shown above, the APA provides that “risk to the Aircraft shall pass to purchaser when the purchase price is paid in full to Seller.”
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.