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

O.C.G.A. § 11-2-611 (2019)

Retraction of anticipatory repudiation

✓ 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) Until the repudiating party’s next performance is due he can retract his repudiation unless the aggrieved party has since the repudiation canceled or materially changed his position or otherwise indicated that he considers the repudiation final.

(2) Retraction may be by any method which clearly indicates to the aggrieved party that the repudiating party intends to perform, but must include any assurance justifiably demanded under the provisions of this article (Code Section 11-2-609).

(3) Retraction reinstates the repudiating party’s rights under the contract with due excuse and allowance to the aggrieved party for any delay occasioned by the repudiation.

History

Code 1933, § 109A-2-611, enacted by

Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1; Ga. L. 2002, p. 415, § 11.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Implied contract created. - Plaintiff’s acceptance of defendant’s continuing offer of sewer services created an enforceable implied contract between the parties. Georgia v. City of E. Ridge, 949 F. Supp. 1571, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18862 (N.D. Ga. 1996). Conduct of parties evidencing retraction of repudiation. - A buyer’s attempt to cancel a sale order is not an anticipatory breach of the contract where the seller refuses to cancel and asks for

adequate assurance of performance, both parties proceed as if the attempt to cancel has never taken place, the seller does not pursue any of its remedies under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-610, and the conduct of the parties over the ensuing months manifests an implicit understanding that such a repudiation has been retracted without injury. Wahnschaff Corp. v. O.E. Clark Paper Box Co., 166 Ga. App. 242, 304 S.E.2d 91, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2116 (1983).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 67A Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 882-887. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:595. C.J.S. 77A C.J.S., Sales, §§ 99, 105, 119, 141 et seq.

U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2611. ALR. Anticipatory breach of executory contract as starting running of statute of limitations, 94 A.L.R. 455.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1983–2015 · leading case: State of Ga. v. City of East Ridge, Tenn., 949 F. Supp. 1571 (N.D. Ga. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Ga. v. City of East Ridge, Tenn., 949 F. Supp. 1571 (N.D. Ga. 1996). · cites it 2× “As a result, questions of fact exist whether Defendant’s termination notice constituted an anticipatory repudiation of the parties’ contract, and if so, whether Defendant subsequently retracted the repudiation as permitted by O.C.GA. § 11-2-611. Finally, the Court notes that, in…”
Wahnschaff Corp. v. O. E. Clark Paper Box Co., 304 S.E.2d 91 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 11-2-611 (formerly Code Ann. § 109A-2 — 611 (Ga.”
Chemence Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medline Indus., Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 1376 (N.D. Ga. 2015). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 11-2-611(1). . Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ.”
— 11-2-611(1) — 1 case
Chemence Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medline Indus., Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 1376 (N.D. Ga. 2015). “O.C.G.A. § 11-2-611(1). . Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ.”
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.