O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 40-4-1 (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:

MOTOR VEHICLES & TRAFFIC

(1) “Component” means a passenger car engine or a passenger car transmission. (2) “New passenger car” means any passenger car which has never been the subject of a sale at retail to the general public. (3) “Passenger car” means every motor vehicle designed for carrying ten passengers or less except trackless trolleys or vehicles used exclusively upon streetcar rails or tracks or overhead trolley wires. (4) “Used passenger car” means any passenger car which has been the subject of a sale at retail to the general public.

History

Ga. L. 1966, p. 188, § 3; Ga. L. 1967, p. 113, § 3; Ga. L. 1996, p. 336, § 13A.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Automobile which was a “used demo” was “new” car. - Automobile leased by plaintiffs from defendant dealer as a “used demo” was a “new” car, not a “used” car, and the fact that the car was previously titled to the dealer’s son-in-law did not create an issue of fraud in violation of the Fair Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq. Toirkens v. Willett Toyota, Inc., 192 Ga. App. 109, 384 S.E.2d 218, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 959 (1989). Automobile used as demonstrator was “new car.” - In an action alleging violations of the Fair Business Practices

Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq., because the van leased to plaintiffs was always titled in the dealer and was never the subject of a retail sale or lease, the vehicle was a “new car,” and the dealer did not engage in fraudulent or unfair business practices by listing the vehicle as “new,” even though the vehicle had been driven as a demonstrator and had been in a collision. Kondo v. Marietta Toyota, 224 Ga. App. 490, 480 S.E.2d 851, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 27 (1997), cert. denied, No. S97C0815, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 441 (Ga. May 9, 1997).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1989–1997 · leading case: Kondo v. Marietta Toyota, Inc., 480 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
Kondo v. Marietta Toyota, Inc., 480 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “The Georgia statute that governs the identification of and purchase and resale of motor vehicles and parts (OCGA § 40-4-1 et seq.) defines a “new passenger car” as “any passenger car which has never been the subject of a sale at retail to the general public.”
Toirkens v. Willett Toyota, Inc., 384 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 40-4-1 (2). The undisputed evidence in this case shows that plaintiffs’ automobile had been titled to the son-in-law of the owner of defendant car dealership solely for the convenience of the dealership.”
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.