O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-2-702 (2019)

Seller’s remedies on discovery of buyer’s insolvency

✓ 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 the seller discovers the buyer to be insolvent he may refuse delivery except for cash including payment for all goods theretofore delivered under the contract, and stop delivery under this article (Code Section 11-2-705). (2) Where the seller discovers that the buyer has received goods on credit while insolvent he may reclaim the goods upon demand made within ten days after the receipt, but if misrepresentation of solvency has been made to the particular seller in writing within three months before delivery the ten-day limitation does not apply. Except as provided in this subsection the seller may not base a right to reclaim goods on the buyer’s fraudulent or innocent misrepresentation of solvency or of intent to pay. (3) The seller’s right to reclaim under subsection (2) of this Code section is subject to the rights of a buyer in ordinary course or other good faith purchaser or lien creditor under this article (Code Section 11-2-403). Successful reclamation of goods excludes all other remedies with respect to them.

History

Code 1933, § 109A-2-702, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. For article discussing the resolution of conflicting claims to goods between an unsecured seller of goods and a creditor of

a buyer claiming under an after-acquired property clause, see 28 Mercer L. Rev. 625 (1977). For article surveying recent judicial developments in commercial law, see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 13 (1979).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Right of reclamation subject to rights of good faith purchasers. - Right to reclamation of delivered goods by seller on discovery of purchaser’s insolvency is primarily a right between seller and purchaser, and is subject to paramount rights of a buyer in ordinary course

of business or other good faith purchaser. B & P Lumber Co. v. First Nat’l Bank, 147 Ga. App. 762, 250 S.E.2d 505, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2940 (1978). Good faith purchaser defeats seller’s reclamation rights. - Where the record contained nothing to refute the

affidavit of the defendant company’s president to the effect that it had no actual knowledge of facts which would prevent it from being considered a good faith purchaser, pursuant to the clear and unequivocal language of O.C.G.A. § 11-2702(3), whatever reclamation rights the plaintiff might have had in the property were cut off by the foreclosure sale at which the defendant purchased the appliances and furnishings. Weinberg/Matheson Equities, Inc. v. Charles S. Martin Distrib. Co., 180 Ga. App. 182, 348 S.E.2d 723, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 2088 (1986). Reclamation rights not extended to proceeds. - A seller, who has foregone the available option of perfecting its own interests under the UCC, enjoys a remedy under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-702 only to the extent that the provision grants such a seller a right to reclaim the goods from the buyer or purchasers who have proceeded

other than in good faith; the UCC creates no reclamation rights which extend to proceeds. Dixie Bonded Whse. & GrainGraniteville Co. v. Bleckley Lumber Co., 755 F. Supp. 1543, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1539 (M.D. Ga.), aff’d, 944 F.2d 819, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 23607 (11th Cir. 1991). Reclamation where secured creditor with prior claim exists. - A seller may have a right to reclaim pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 11-2-702, notwithstanding the existence of a secured creditor with a prior claim, in which case, the seller may then be entitled to a lien or administrative priority claim, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c)(2), but only if the seller can establish that the seller’s right to reclaim has some value outside of the bankruptcy context. In re Leeds Bldg. Prods., Inc., 141 B.R. 265, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 888 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1992).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, § 673. 67A Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 1025-1050. 68A Am. Jur. 2d, Secured Transactions, § 867. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:658. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2702. ALR. Duty of purchaser on credit to accept seller’s offer to deliver for cash, 1 A.L.R. 436; 46 A.L.R. 1192. Right of seller to rescind or refuse fur-

ther deliveries upon the buyer’s failure to pay for instalments, 14 A.L.R. 1209; 75 A.L.R. 609. Right of seller to enforce contract for sale on credit as contract for cash because of buyer’s insolvency, 58 A.L.R. 1301; 117 A.L.R. 1105. Right to rescind sale and reclaim goods for buyer’s fraud as to his financial condition as against trustee in bankruptcy under American act, 59 A.L.R. 418. Buyer’s insolvency as affecting rights and obligations of parties to sale of goods on credit before delivery thereof, 117 A.L.R. 1105.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1986–2017 · leading case: Matter of Leeds Bldg. Prods., Inc., 141 B.R. 265 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1992).
Matter of Leeds Bldg. Prods., Inc., 141 B.R. 265 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1992). · cites it 23× “As of November 27, 1991, twenty seven creditors had filed notices of reclamation pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 11-2-702 (U.C.C. § 2-702), asserting the right to reclaim goods previously delivered to Debtor.”
Ohio Valley Flooring, Inc. v. Flooring Am., Inc. (In Re Flooring Am., Inc.), 271 B.R. 911 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2001). · cites it 16× “Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 11-2-702 and 11 U.S.C.S. § 546 (c), Ohio Valley Flooring hereby demands return of the goods as described in the enclosed invoices.”
Dixie Bonded Warehouse & Grain Co. v. Allstate Fin. Corp., 755 F. Supp. 1543 (M.D. Ga. 1991). · cites it 6× “In essence, then, a seller such as Dixie, who has foregone the available option of perfecting its own interests under the UCC, enjoys a remedy under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-702, only to the extent that the provision grants such a seller a right to reclaim the goods from the buyer or…”
Graniteville Co. v. Bleckley Lumber Co., 687 F. Supp. 589 (M.D. Ga. 1988). · cites it 4× “He concluded that sections 2-702 and 2-703 (O.C.G.A. §§ 11-2-702 and 11-2-703) provided an exacting procedure by which an aggrieved credit seller may reclaim goods from a breaching buyer.”
Whirlpool Corp. v. hhgregg, Inc. (In re hhgregg, Inc.), 578 B.R. 814 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 2017). “§ 26-1-2-702(3); contrast with Ga. Code § 11-2-702(3) and Ohio Rev. Code.”
Eastman Cutting Room Sales Corp. v. Ottenheimer & Co., 472 S.E.2d 494 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 20× “After the trial, the trial court found that under an agreement between Eastman and Ottenheimer, Eastman began delivery of the equipment in question in February 1995, the last delivery was made on May 26, 1995, and the equipment was fully installed by June 28, 1995.”
Weinberg/Matheson Equities, Inc. v. Charles S. Martin Distrib. Co., 348 S.E.2d 723 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “However, because the prior owner of the apartments, to whom the appellee had *183 sold the appliances and furnishings, allegedly misrepresented its solvency prior to the sale, the appellee contends that it retained enforceable reclamation rights in the property pursuant to OCGA…”
— 11-2-702(2) — 3 cases
Matter of Leeds Bldg. Prods., Inc., 141 B.R. 265 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1992). “As of November 27, 1991, twenty seven creditors had filed notices of reclamation pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 11-2-702 (U.C.C. § 2-702), asserting the right to reclaim goods previously delivered to Debtor.”
Dixie Bonded Warehouse & Grain Co. v. Allstate Fin. Corp., 755 F. Supp. 1543 (M.D. Ga. 1991). “In essence, then, a seller such as Dixie, who has foregone the available option of perfecting its own interests under the UCC, enjoys a remedy under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-702, only to the extent that the provision grants such a seller a right to reclaim the goods from the buyer or…”
Eastman Cutting Room Sales Corp. v. Ottenheimer & Co., 472 S.E.2d 494 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). “After the trial, the trial court found that under an agreement between Eastman and Ottenheimer, Eastman began delivery of the equipment in question in February 1995, the last delivery was made on May 26, 1995, and the equipment was fully installed by June 28, 1995.”
— 11-2-702(3) — 3 cases
Matter of Leeds Bldg. Prods., Inc., 141 B.R. 265 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1992). “As of November 27, 1991, twenty seven creditors had filed notices of reclamation pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 11-2-702 (U.C.C. § 2-702), asserting the right to reclaim goods previously delivered to Debtor.”
Ohio Valley Flooring, Inc. v. Flooring Am., Inc. (In Re Flooring Am., Inc.), 271 B.R. 911 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2001). “Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 11-2-702 and 11 U.S.C.S. § 546 (c), Ohio Valley Flooring hereby demands return of the goods as described in the enclosed invoices.”
Whirlpool Corp. v. hhgregg, Inc. (In re hhgregg, Inc.), 578 B.R. 814 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 2017). “§ 26-1-2-702(3); contrast with Ga. Code § 11-2-702(3) and Ohio Rev. Code.”
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.