O.C.G.A.

11-2A-505 (2019)

Cancellation and termination and effect of cancellation, termination, rescission, or fraud on rights and remedies

✓ 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) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the canceling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.

(2) On termination of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged but any right based on prior default or performance survives.

(3) Unless the contrary intention clearly appears, expressions of “cancellation,” “rescission,” or the like of the lease contract may not be construed as a renunciation or discharge of any claim in damages for an antecedent default.

(4) Rights and remedies for material misrepresentation or fraud include all rights and remedies available under this article for default.

(5) Neither rescission nor a claim for rescission of the lease contract nor rejection or return of the goods may bar or be deemed inconsistent with a claim for damages or other right or remedy.

History

Code 1981, § 11-2A-505, enacted by Ga.

L. 1993, p. 633, § 1; Ga. L. 2002, p. 415, § 11.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2A-505.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2000–2000 · leading case: Lamar v. Mitsubishi Motors Credit of Am., Inc. (In Re Lamar), 249 B.R. 822 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lamar v. Mitsubishi Motors Credit of Am., Inc. (In Re Lamar), 249 B.R. 822 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2000). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 11-2A-505(1) & (2). The distinction does not affect the outcome here.”

— 11-2A-505(1) — 1 case

Lamar v. Mitsubishi Motors Credit of Am., Inc. (In Re Lamar), 249 B.R. 822 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2000). “O.C.G.A. § 11-2A-505(1) & (2). The distinction does not affect the outcome here.”

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.