O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 13-4-61 (2019)

Rights of vendor as to reclamation of goods where contract rescinded for fraud

✓ 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

Except as otherwise provided in Title 11, the ‘‘Uniform Commercial Code,’’ where a contract of sale is rescinded for fraud, the rights of the vendor reclaiming the goods are superior to those of one who has acquired the goods or a lien thereon in consideration of an antecedent debt. (Civil Code 1895, § 3713; Civil Code 1910, § 4307; Code 1933, § 20-908.) History of Code section. - This Code section is derived from the decision in Dinkler v. Potts & Potts, 90 Ga. 103, 15 S.E. 690 (1892).

Annotations

Cross references. - Provisions of Uniform Commercial Code relating to sales, § 11-2-101 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Defrauded vendor of land had rights superior to vendee’s grantee taking as security for preexisting debt. Mize v. Bank of Whigham, 138 Ga. 499, 75 S.E. 629 (1912).

Vendor’s right under O.C.G.A. § 13-4-61 superior to mortgagee’s under mortgage to secure antecedent debt. - Right of seller to rescind sale for fraud is superior to right of

mortgagee whose mortgage was taken to secure antecedent debt. Harris v. Evans, 134 Ga. 161, 67 S.E. 880 (1910). On facts, seller’s right of reclamation superior to those of buyer’s trustee in bankruptcy. - When seller was induced to sell goods shortly before buyer’s bankruptcy, at time when buyer was insolvent, and when buyer did not intend to pay, and concealed the buyer’s insolvency by affirmative misrep-

resentations, giving the seller the right to rescind, the seller could reclaim goods as against buyer’s trustee. In re Spinks Drug Co., 298 F. 307 (N.D. Ga. 1924). Cited in Sutton v. Ford, 144 Ga. 587, 87 S.E. 799, 1918D L.R.A. 561, 1918A Ann. Cas. 106 (1916); Singletary v. GMAC, 73 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1934); Puckett v. Reese, 203 Ga. 716, 48 S.E.2d 297 (1948).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 77 Am. Jur. 2d, Vendor and Purchaser, §§ 349, 463, 502. C.J.S. - 92 C.J.S., Vendor and Purchaser, § 440 et seq. ALR. - Validity and effect of stipulation to the effect that vendee or purchaser does not rely upon representations of vendor or seller, or the latter’s agent, 10 ALR 1472. Recovery in action of deceit for fraudulently inducing contract of expense of other litigation incident to contract, 41 ALR 1156. Dealings between seller and buyer after latter’s knowledge of former’s fraud as waiver of claim for damages on account of fraud, 106 ALR 172.

Assignability of right to rescind or of right to return of money or other property as incident of rescission, 110 ALR 849; 162 ALR 743. Compensation as alternative relief upon denial of rescission to purchaser of land, 175 ALR 686. Rescission of corporate stock sale or transaction as authorizing court to award recovery of requisite number of shares to party entitled to relief, 14 ALR2d 855. What constitutes abandonment of land contract by vendee, 68 ALR2d 581.