O.C.G.A.

11-2A-214 (2019)

Exclusion or modification of warranties

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
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) Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to negate or limit a warranty must be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but, subject to the provisions of Code Section 11-2A-202 on parol or extrinsic evidence, negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that the construction is unreasonable.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention “merchantability,” be by a writing, and be conspicuous. Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and be conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it is in writing, is conspicuous and states, for example, “There is no warranty that the goods will be fit for a particular purpose.”

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), but subject to subsection (4),

(a) Unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like “as is,” or “with all faults,” or by other language that in common understanding calls the lessee’s attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty, if in writing and conspicuous;

(b) If the lessee before entering into the lease contract has examined the goods or the sample or model as fully as desired or has refused to examine the goods, there is no implied warranty with regard to defects that an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed; and

(c) An implied warranty may also be excluded or modified by course of dealing, course of performance, or usage of trade. (4) To exclude or modify a warranty against interference or against infringement (Code Section 11-2A-211) or any part of it, the language must be specific, be by a writing, and be conspicuous, unless the circumstances, including course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade, give the lessee reason to know that the goods are being leased subject to a claim or interest of any person.

History

Code 1981, § 11-2A-214, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 633, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Language not conspicuous. - Where a paragraph in a lease purporting to disclaim implied warranties of merchantibility and fitness was in the same size font as the rest of the printed terms and, although separately numbered, was not otherwise set apart from the other paragraphs, the language was not “conspicuous” within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 11-1-201(10). Bailey v. Tucker Equip. Sales, Inc., 236 Ga. App. 289, 510 S.E.2d 904, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 40 (1999).

A reasonable person would not necessarily have noticed and understood that by the mere mention of “as is” in the context in which it appeared in a lease agreement, without any mention of any warranties or any disclaimers of warranties, he or she was agreeing to forego any rights to lease a piece of equipment in fit and suitable working condition. Bailey v. Tucker Equip. Sales, Inc., 236 Ga. App. 289, 510 S.E.2d 904, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 40 (1999).

RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2A-214.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1998–1999 · leading case: Bailey v. Tucker Equip. Sales, Inc., 510 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
Bailey v. Tucker Equip. Sales, Inc., 510 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “” Bailey contended that because the language was not highlighted, bolded, in larger print, or otherwise set off, it was not sufficiently “conspicuous,” to effectively disclaim certain implied warranties as permitted by OCGA § 11-2A-214 (3) (a). The trial court denied the motion…”
Lane v. Ken Thomas of Georgia, Inc., 503 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 11-2A-214 (3) (a). The term appears on the bill of sale in bold and conspicuous letters, and any warranty was therefore excluded.”
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.