O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-2-722 (2019)

Who can sue third parties for injury to goods

✓ 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

Where a third party so deals with goods which have been identified to a contract for sale as to cause actionable injury to a party to that contract: (a) A right of action against the third party is in either party to the contract for sale who has title to or a security interest or a special property or an insurable interest in the goods; and if the goods have been destroyed or converted a right of action is also in the party who either bore the risk of loss under the contract for sale or has since the injury assumed that risk as against the other; (b) If at the time of the injury the party plaintiff did not bear the risk of loss as against the other party to the contract for sale and there is no arrangement between them for disposition of the recovery, his suit or settlement is, subject to his own interest, as a fiduciary for the other party to the contract; (c) Either party may with the consent of the other sue for the benefit of whom it may concern.

History

Code 1933, § 109A-2-722, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Applicability. - O.C.G.A. § 11-2-722 merely determines which party to a con-

tract may bring an action against a third party who has otherwise committed an

actionable injury against identifiable property that is the subject of the contract; it did not apply in an action for damages, arising from delay in delivery of a machine, against a defendant which had agreed to sell the machine to a third

company which would sell it to the plaintiff. Philips Medical Sys. N. Am. Co. v. Diagnostic Equip. Servs., Inc., 213 Ga. App. 236, 444 S.E.2d 345, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 513 (1994).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, § 409. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:808.

U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2722.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1994–1999 · leading case: Crews v. Wahl, 520 S.E.2d 727 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Crews v. Wahl, 520 S.E.2d 727 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “(a) The defendants contend the trial court erred in charging the jury pursuant to OCGA § 11-2-722 of the Uniform Commercial Code.”

Philips Med. Sys. North Am. Co. v. Diagnostic Equip. Servs., Inc., 444 S.E.2d 345 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 16× “Philips Medical Systems (“Philips”) appeals from a judgment, based upon a jury verdict, in favor of Diagnostic Equipment Services (“DES”) on a claim based upon OCGA § 11-2-722 arising from the delay in delivery of a CT-Scanner machine.”

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.