O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-2-709 (2019)

Action for the price

✓ 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) When the buyer fails to pay the price as it becomes due the seller may recover, together with any incidental damages under Code Section 11-2-710, the price: (a) Of goods accepted or of conforming goods lost or damaged within a commercially reasonable time after risk of their loss has passed to the buyer; and (b) Of goods identified to the contract if the seller is unable after reasonable effort to resell them at a reasonable price or the circumstances reasonably indicate that such effort will be unavailing. (2) Where the seller sues for the price he must hold for the buyer any goods which have been identified to the contract and are still in his control except that if resale becomes possible he may resell them at any time prior to the collection of the judgment. The net proceeds of any such resale must be credited to the buyer and payment of the judgment entitles him to any goods not resold. (3) After the buyer has wrongfully rejected or revoked acceptance of the goods or has failed to make a payment due or has repudiated (Code Section 11-2-610), a seller who is held not entitled to the price under this Code section shall nevertheless be awarded damages for nonacceptance under Code Section 11-2-708.

History

Code 1933, § 109A-2-709, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. For comment on Schuler v. Dearing

Chevrolet Co., 76 Ga. App. 570, 46 S.E.2d 611 (1948), see 11 Ga. B.J. 72 (1948).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 96-101 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Proof of price required. - Price was one of the essentials of contract for sale of goods giving rise to alleged indebtedness, which was denied by defendant in its answer, and proof of price, as amount sued for, was necessary to prove case as alleged; where evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant owed plaintiff any definite amount, as contract price of goods or as market value of goods, nonsuit was proper. Wolfe v. Brown-Wright Hotel Supply Corp., 87 Ga. App. 12, 73 S.E.2d 82, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 600 (1952) (decided under former Code 1933, § 96-101).

Suit on open account may be maintained for price of goods sold under contract where price has been agreed upon by seller and purchaser and where seller has performed seller’s part of the agreement and nothing remains to be done except for purchaser to make payment. Wolfe v. Brown-Wright Hotel Supply Corp., 87 Ga. App. 12, 73 S.E.2d 82, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 600 (1952) (decided under former Code 1933, § 96-101). Jury issues. - Language of O.C.G.A. § 11-2-709(1)(b) clearly evinces legislative intent that these matters ordinarily should be subject to determination by a jury and not by the court. Multi-Line Mfg., Inc. v. Greenwood Mills, Inc., 123 Ga. App. 372, 180 S.E.2d 917, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1228 (1971).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 67A Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 1135-1154. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:705. C.J.S. 77A C.J.S., Sales, § 326. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2709. ALR. Bringing action for price as waiver by conditional vendor of right to reclaim property, 12 A.L.R. 503; 56 A.L.R. 238; 113 A.L.R. 653. Taking possession of property conditionally sold as affecting action previously commenced for purchase price, 23 A.L.R. 1462. Right to recover purchase price of articles or substances susceptible of illegal use in manufacture of beverages, 29 A.L.R. 1058. Provision in land contract for pecuniary

forfeiture or penalty upon default of the purchaser as affecting the vendor’s right to maintain an action for the purchase price, 32 A.L.R. 617. Vendor’s default in payment of taxes or discharge of encumbrance as affecting his right to maintain action for purchase money, 101 A.L.R. 526. Seller’s, bailor’s, lessor’s, or lender’s knowledge of the other party’s intention to put the property or money to an illegal use as defense to action for purchase price, rent, or loan, 166 A.L.R. 1353. Measure of damages for buyer’s breach of contract to purchase article from dealer or manufacturer’s agent, 24 A.L.R.2d 1008. Seller’s recovery of price of goods from buyer under UCC § 2-709, 90 A.L.R.3d 1141. Applicability of UCC Article 2 to mixed contracts for sale of consumer goods and services, 1 A.L.R.7th 3. Applicability of UCC Article 2 to mixed contracts for sale of goods and services:

distributorship, franchise, and similar business contracts, 8 A.L.R.7th 4. Applicability of UCC Article 2 to mixed

contracts for sale of business goods and services: manufacturing, construction, and similar contracts, 15 A.L.R.7th 7.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Franklin v. Demico, Inc., 347 S.E.2d 718 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).
Franklin v. Demico, Inc., 347 S.E.2d 718 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “Demico's action by its very nature is not one for the price under OCGA § 11-2-709. Thus, OCGA § 11-2-708 would control.”
Kwickie/Flash Foods, Inc. v. Lakeside Petroleum, Inc., 568 S.E.2d 816 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “The court concluded that under OCGA § 11-2-709 (2), Lakeside was required to credit Kwickie for the $7,665.”
Al & Zack Brown, Inc. v. Bullock, 518 S.E.2d 458 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 11-2-709 (1). We disagree. Article 2 of the UCC applies only to actions involving the sale of goods.”
Advance Tufting, Inc. v. Daneshyar, 577 S.E.2d 90 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Further, “[u]nless otherwise provided in writing signed by the obligor, a commercial account becomes due and payable upon the date a statement of the account is rendered to the obligor.” OCGA § 7-4-16. In this case, separate running of the statute of limitation occurred from…”
Hydro Sys., Inc v. Factory Automation Sys., Inc (N.D. Ga. 2025). · cites it 2× “” O.C.G.A. § 11-2-709(1), (2) (citing O.C.G.”
— 11-2-709(1) — 1 case
Hydro Sys., Inc v. Factory Automation Sys., Inc (N.D. Ga. 2025). “” O.C.G.A. § 11-2-709(1), (2) (citing O.C.G.”
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.