O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 2-9-1 (2019)

Definitions

✓ 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

As used in this article, the term:

(1) ‘‘Agricultural products’’ includes fruits, vegetables, pecans, and cotton but does not include dairy products, tobacco, grains, eggs, and other basic farm crops.

(2) ‘‘Dealer in agricultural products’’ means any person, association, itinerant dealer, partnership, or corporation engaged in the business of buying, receiving, selling, exchanging, negotiating, or soliciting the sale, resale, exchange, or transfer of any agricultural products purchased from the producer or his or her agent or representative or received on consignment from the producer or his or her agent or representative or received to be handled on a net return basis from the producer. The term ‘‘dealer in agricultural products’’ also includes any person buying, selling, processing, or shelling pecan nuts, including any and every kind and variety of pecan nuts.

(3) ‘‘Net return basis’’ means a purchase for sale of agricultural products from a producer or shipper at a price which is not fixed or stated at the time the agricultural products are shipped from the point of origin. The term includes all purchases made ‘‘at the market price,’’ ‘‘at net worth,’’ and on similar terms indicating that the buyer is the final arbiter of the price to be paid.

(4) ‘‘On consignment’’ means any receiving or sale of agricultural products for the account of a person, other than the seller, wherein the seller acts as the agent for the owner.

(5) ‘‘Producer’’ means any producer of agricultural products.

History

Ga. L. 1956, p. 617, § 1; Ga. L. 1957, p. 7, § 1; Ga. L. 1962, p. 127, § 1; Ga. L. 1962, p. 636, § 1; Ga. L. 1978, p. 1450, § 1; Ga. L. 1991, p. 1053, § 1; Ga. L.

1992, p. 2149, § 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 800, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1510, § 1; Ga. L. 2013, p. 797, § 1/HB 268.

Annotations

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Section inapplicable to sale of baby chicks. - The sale of baby chicks by those persons engaged therein is not subject to this section. 1958-59 Op. Att’y Gen. p. 3. Lumber is not an ‘‘agricultural product’’ within the meaning of the Geor-

gia State Warehouse Act. 1958-59 Op. Att’y Gen. p. 12. Nursery products are not ‘‘agricultural products.’’ - Nursery products such as ornamental garden shrubs, are not ‘‘agricultural products.’’ 1969 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 69-407.

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - State statute in relation to inspection and grading of grain as unlaw-

ful burden on interstate commerce, 19 A.L.R. 164.

Validity of discrimination in license statute or ordinance in favor of farmers selling their own products and against

other persons dealing in farm products, 123 A.L.R. 1051.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2019–2020 · leading case: San Miguel Produce, Inc. v. L.G. Herndon Jr. Farms, Inc, 843 S.E.2d 403 (Ga. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
San Miguel Produce, Inc. v. L.G. Herndon Jr. Farms, Inc, 843 S.E.2d 403 (Ga. 2020). · cites it 18× “617 (codified as amended at OCGA §§ 2-9-1 to 2-9-16) (“the Act”). See San Miguel Produce v.”
San Miguel Produce, Inc. v. L.G. Herndon Jr. Farms, Inc. (S.D. Ga. 2019). · cites it 13× “In moving for summary judgment, however, Herndon Farms argues San Miguel’s failure to comply with Georgia’s Dealers in Agricultural Products Act, O.C.G.A. § 2-9-1 et seq. (“the Act”), renders the GSA void and unenforceable.”
— 2-9-1(2) — 1 case
San Miguel Produce, Inc. v. L.G. Herndon Jr. Farms, Inc. (S.D. Ga. 2019). “In moving for summary judgment, however, Herndon Farms argues San Miguel’s failure to comply with Georgia’s Dealers in Agricultural Products Act, O.C.G.A. § 2-9-1 et seq. (“the Act”), renders the GSA void and unenforceable.”
— 2-9-1(5) — 1 case
San Miguel Produce, Inc. v. L.G. Herndon Jr. Farms, Inc. (S.D. Ga. 2019). “In moving for summary judgment, however, Herndon Farms argues San Miguel’s failure to comply with Georgia’s Dealers in Agricultural Products Act, O.C.G.A. § 2-9-1 et seq. (“the Act”), renders the GSA void and unenforceable.”
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.