O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-2-601 (2019)

Buyer’s rights on improper delivery

✓ 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

Subject to the provisions of this article on breach in installment contracts (Code Section 11-2-612) and unless otherwise agreed under the Code sections on contractual limitations of remedy (Code Sections 11-2-718 and 11-2-719), if the goods or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may:

(a) Reject the whole; or

(b) Accept the whole; or

History

Code 1933, § 109A-2-601, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. For note, “Buyer’s Right to Revoke Acceptance Against the Automobile Manufacturer for Breach of its Continuing War-

ranty of Repair or Replacement,” see 7 Ga. L. Rev. 711 (1973). For article, “Buyer’s Right of Rejection: A Quarter Century Under the Uniform Commercial Code, and Recent International Developments,” see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 805 (1979).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 642-646. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:496. C.J.S. 77A C.J.S., Sales, §§ 189, 197. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2601. ALR. Contract for sale of goods as entire or divisible, 2 A.L.R. 643. Applicability of provision in contract of sale for return of article, where article delivered does not answer to description, 30 A.L.R. 321.

Misrouting as affecting duty of the buyer to accept goods, 46 A.L.R. 1120. Sufficiency of buyer’s attempt to rescind as affected by his apparent recognition of or insistence upon continuance of seller’s obligation under the contract, 118 A.L.R. 530. Shipper’s ratification of carrier’s unauthorized delivery or misdelivery, 15 A.L.R.2d 807. Right of purchaser to decline performance of contract for sale of business or goods because of seller’s failure to comply with bulk sales law, 24 A.L.R.2d 1030. Acceptance of some “commercial units” of goods purchased under UCC § 2601(C), 41 A.L.R.4th 396.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Atwood v. Se. Bedding Co., Inc., 485 S.E.2d 217 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Atwood v. Se. Bedding Co., Inc., 485 S.E.2d 217 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 8× “Moreover, OCGA § 11-2-601 does not authorize a buyer to use the procedures appellants rely on in this case.”

SPS Indus., Inc. v. Atl. Steel Co., 366 S.E.2d 410 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 11-2-601. However, “Rejection of goods must be within a reasonable time after their delivery or tender.”

Prudential Metal Supply Corp. v. Atl. Freight Sales Co., 419 S.E.2d 520 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 11-2-601. Acceptance occurs when, after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods, the buyer indicates the goods are conforming or that he will take them despite the nonconformity, or the buyer acts in a manner inconsistent with the seller’s ownership.”

Omac, Inc. v. Sw. Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 374 S.E.2d 829 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “A jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee, and appellant appeals, contending the trial court erred in charging the jury on the principles espoused in OCGA §§ 11-2-601; 11-2-602; and 11-2-606.”

Contract Sales & Serv. Int'l, Inc. v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., 453 S.E.2d 62 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Under Georgia’s Uniform Commercial Code, “ ‘[t]he buyer must pay at the contract price for any goods accepted.’ OCGA § 11-2-607 (1).”

Ardus Med., Inc. v. Emanuel Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 558 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (S.D. Ga. 2008). · cites it 2× “The following UCC rules apply: The buyer is entitled to accept or reject goods which fail to conform to the contract by rejecting or accepting the whole, or by accepting any commercial unit or units (see O.”

Lundy v. Low, 408 S.E.2d 144 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “It is undisputed that Nell proposed an alternative shipping schedule which appellee accepted (OCGA § 11-2-601 (b)) and executed with no objection from appellants until the counterclaim was filed.”

Sapna Foods, Inc. v. The Olive Oil Factory, LLC (N.D. Ga. 2026). · cites it 4× “” O.C.G.A. § 11-2-601 (emphasis added). Such “[r]ejection of goods must be within a reasonable time after their delivery or tender,” and “[i]t is ineffective unless the buyer seasonably notifies the seller.”

Unipay, Inc. v. Lynk Sys., Inc., 555 S.E.2d 78 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “54 due on the shipments regardless of whether the shipments delivered less than the number of items of equipment called for by the agreement.”

Hydro Sys., Inc v. Factory Automation Sys., Inc (N.D. Ga. 2025). · cites it 2× “§ 11-2-507, or even accepted, O.C.G.A. § 11-2-601. Because it is undisputed that FAS made some delivery of goods under the Proposal, the proper analysis is to determine whether rejection, acceptance, or revocation properly occurred.”

Sapna Foods, Inc. v. The Olive Oil Factory, LLC (N.D. Ga. 2024). “§ 11-2-601 (stating that a buyer may reject or accept nonconforming goods).”

Woodbridge USA Props., L.P. vs Se. Trailer Mart, Inc., 412 F. App'x 218 (11th Cir. 2011). “” O.C.G.A. § 11-2-601. The buyer has accepted if he “[d]oes any act inconsistent with the seller’s ownership.”

— 11-2-601(c) — 1 case

Atwood v. Se. Bedding Co., Inc., 485 S.E.2d 217 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). “Moreover, OCGA § 11-2-601 does not authorize a buyer to use the procedures appellants rely on in this case.”

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.