Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 13-4-61 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 13-4-61 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 13-4-61

TITLE 13 CONTRACTS

Section 4. Modification, Extinguishment, and Renewal, 13-4-1 through 13-4-104.

ARTICLE 4 RESCISSION

13-4-61. Rights of vendor as to reclamation of goods where contract rescinded for fraud.

Except as otherwise provided in Title 11, the "Uniform Commercial Code," where a contract of sale is rescinded for fraud, the rights of the vendor reclaiming the goods are superior to those of one who has acquired the goods or a lien thereon in consideration of an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 section.

- This Code section is derived from the decision in Dinkler v. Potts & Potts, 90 Ga. 103, 15 S.E. 690 (1892).

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 misrepresentations, 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 A.L.R. 1472.

Recovery in action of deceit for fraudulently inducing contract of expense of other litigation incident to contract, 41 A.L.R. 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 A.L.R. 172.

Assignability of right to rescind or of right to return of money or other property as incident of rescission, 110 A.L.R. 849; 162 A.L.R. 743.

Compensation as alternative relief upon denial of rescission to purchaser of land, 175 A.L.R. 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 A.L.R.2d 855.

What constitutes abandonment of land contract by vendee, 68 A.L.R.2d 581.

No results found for Georgia Code 13-4-61.