Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-507 (2026)

Effect of seller's tender - Delivery on condition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Acts 1963, ch. 81, § 1 (2-507).


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1982–2011 · leading case: Prod. Steel, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp. of Am. (In Re Prod. Steel, Inc.), 54 B.R. 417 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1985).
Prod. Steel, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp. of Am. (In Re Prod. Steel, Inc.), 54 B.R. 417 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1985). · cites it 3× “This “insurable interest” is separate and distinct from the duty to pay which arises upon delivery and acceptance (unless the contract provides otherwise).”
John P. Saad & Sons, Inc. v. Nashville Thermal Transfer Corp., 715 S.W.2d 41 (Tenn. 1986). · cites it 2× “§ 47-2-503 (Manner of seller’s tender of delivery); T.C.A. § 47-2-507 (Effect of seller’s tender).”
North Georgia Toyota v. Jahn (In Re Tom Woods Used Cars, Inc.), 24 B.R. 529 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1982). · cites it 3× “Furthermore, the court believes it is appropriate to require both credit and cash sellers to demand return of the goods within ten days after delivery to the buyer or lose the right to reclaim against' a third party, such as the trustee, who has acquired an interest in the goods…”
Roach v. Edge (In Re Edge), 60 B.R. 690 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986). “§ 47-2-507(1) (Michie 1979). This court has been unable to find a Tennessee *697 statute or decision employing the phrase “right to payment” in any helpful context.”
In Re the Julien Co., Debtor. Oakland Gin Co., Inc. v. Jack Marlow, Tr. for the Julien Co., 44 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 1995). “1982); Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-507 (2). The contracts required Oakland to draw a draft of the Julien Co.”
In Re Microwave Prods. of Am., Inc., 94 B.R. 967 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1989). · cites it 3× “Section 2-507(2) has been enacted in Tennessee as T.C.A. 47-2-507(2). See also, Official Comment 3 to section 2-507.”
Claybrook v. AutoZone Texas, L.P. (In Re Am. Remanufacturers, Inc.), 451 B.R. 349 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011). “After a seller tenders conforming goods, “the buyer has a positive duty to accept and his failure to do so constitutes a ‘wrongful rejection’ which gives the seller immediate remedies for breach.” Id.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-507(1) — 3 cases
Prod. Steel, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp. of Am. (In Re Prod. Steel, Inc.), 54 B.R. 417 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1985). “This “insurable interest” is separate and distinct from the duty to pay which arises upon delivery and acceptance (unless the contract provides otherwise).”
Roach v. Edge (In Re Edge), 60 B.R. 690 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986). “§ 47-2-507(1) (Michie 1979). This court has been unable to find a Tennessee *697 statute or decision employing the phrase “right to payment” in any helpful context.”
Claybrook v. AutoZone Texas, L.P. (In Re Am. Remanufacturers, Inc.), 451 B.R. 349 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011). “After a seller tenders conforming goods, “the buyer has a positive duty to accept and his failure to do so constitutes a ‘wrongful rejection’ which gives the seller immediate remedies for breach.” Id.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-507(2) — 2 cases
North Georgia Toyota v. Jahn (In Re Tom Woods Used Cars, Inc.), 24 B.R. 529 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1982). “Furthermore, the court believes it is appropriate to require both credit and cash sellers to demand return of the goods within ten days after delivery to the buyer or lose the right to reclaim against' a third party, such as the trustee, who has acquired an interest in the goods…”
In Re Microwave Prods. of Am., Inc., 94 B.R. 967 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1989). “Section 2-507(2) has been enacted in Tennessee as T.C.A. 47-2-507(2). See also, Official Comment 3 to section 2-507.”
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.