O.C.G.A.
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.
(a) A person who transfers an instrument for consideration warrants to the transferee and, if the transfer is by indorsement, to any subsequent transferee that: (1) The warrantor is a person entitled to enforce the instrument; (2) All signatures on the instrument are authentic and authorized; (3) The instrument has not been altered; (4) The instrument is not subject to a defense or claim in recoupment of any party which can be asserted against the warrantor; and (5) The warrantor has no knowledge of any insolvency proceeding commenced with respect to the maker or acceptor or, in the case of an unaccepted draft, the drawer. (b) A person to whom the warranties under subsection (a) of this Code section are made and who took the instrument in good faith may recover from the warrantor as damages for breach of warranty an amount equal to the loss suffered as a result of the breach, but not more than the amount of the instrument plus expenses and loss of interest incurred as a result of the breach. (c) The warranties stated in subsection (a) of this Code section cannot be disclaimed with respect to checks. Unless notice of a claim for breach of warranty is given to the warrantor within 30 days after the claimant has reason to know of the breach and the identity of the warrantor, the liability of the warrantor under subsection (b) of this Code section is discharged to the extent of any loss caused by the delay in giving notice of the claim. (d) A cause of action for breach of warranty under this Code section accrues when the claimant has reason to know of the breach.
History
Code 1981, § 11-3-416, enacted by Ga.
L. 1996, p. 1306, § 3; Ga. L. 1997, p. 143, § 11.
Annotations
RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 3416.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1983–1992 · leading case:
Gunter v. True, 416 S.E.2d 768 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
Gunter v. True, 416 S.E.2d 768 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 18× “OCGA § 11-3-416 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “(1) ‘Payment guaranteed’ or equivalent words added to a signature mean that the signer engages that if the instrument is not paid when due he will pay it according to its tenor without resort by the holder to any other…”
Mitchell v. Ringson, 311 S.E.2d 516 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 8× “Appellant asserts that appellees must first obtain a judgment against the principal debtor, WBIA Radio, and that that judgment must remain unsatisfied before appellant, as a guarantor, can be held liable for the amounts due on the notes.”
Beard v. McDowell, 331 S.E.2d 104 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “The record indicates that appellee simultaneously filed suit against appellant and the maker, Baker, on November 23, 1981, but Baker was never served since he no longer lived in the State of Georgia.”
Nat'l City Bank v. Busbin, 332 S.E.2d 678 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 11-3-416 (5); Mitchell v. Ringson, 169 Ga.”
Rainer v. Sec. Bank & Trust Co., 354 S.E.2d 882 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “The signator waived presentment, demand, and notice of dishonor, and authorized suit against himself with or without joining the maker and without first or contemporaneously suing or otherwise seeking to collect from the maker.”
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sullivan, 318 S.E.2d 188 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “” OCGA § 11-3-416 (1) and (3). However, the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code have *720 no application in the instant case.”
Yarbrough v. Magbee Bros. Lumber & Supply Co., 375 S.E.2d 471 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “1 In this regard, relying upon OCGA § 11-3-416 (2), he asserts that the words “collection guaranteed” create an issue as to whether plaintiff was required to pursue its remedies against North River before bringing suit on the guaranty.”
Randall v. Timberlake Assocs., Inc., 405 S.E.2d 564 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “” Further, Randall’s statement, “I am giving my personal guarantee that the loan will be paid in full,” is not enforceable as a personal guaranty for the note since there was no consideration: The loan was then in default, and Timberlake specifically rejected the offers…”
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.