Payment against documents made without reservation of rights precludes recovery of the payment for defects apparent in the documents.
(Code 1933, § 109A-2 - 605, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1; Ga. L. 2010, p. 481, § 2-11/HB 451.)
The 2010 amendment, effective May 27, 2010, substituted "in the documents" for "on the face of the documents" at the end of subsection (2). See the Editor's notes for applicability.
Editor's notes.- Ga. L. 2010, p. 481, § 3-1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act applies to a document of title that is issued or a bailment that arises on or after the effective date of this Act. This Act does not apply to a document of title that is issued or a bailment that arises before the effective date of this Act even if the document of title or bailment would be subject to this Act if the document of title had been issued or bailment had arisen on or after the effective date of this Act. This Act does not apply to a right of action that has accrued before the effective date of this Act." This Act became effective May 27, 2010.
Ga. L. 2010, p. 481, § 3-2, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "A document of title issued or a bailment that arises before the effective date of this Act and the rights, documents, and interests flowing from that document or bailment are governed by any statute or other rule amended or repealed by this Act as if such amendment or repeal had not occurred and may be terminated, completed, consummated, or enforced under that statute or other rule." This Act became effective May 27, 2010.
Law reviews.- For article, "Buyer's Right of Rejection: A Quarter Century Under the Uniform Commercial Code, and Recent International Developments," see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 805 (1979). For note, "The Scope and Meaning of Waiver of Section 2-209 of the Uniform Commercial Code," see 5 Ga. L. Rev. 783 (1971).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Breach of express warranty not found.
- Manufacturer did not breach its express warranty as the manufacturer addressed each defect in a vehicle as it arose, most repairs were made within days, and the only extended delay was the result of the buyer's decision to postpone bringing the vehicle into the repair facility. Knight v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 272 Ga. App. 319, 612 S.E.2d 546 (2005).
Manufacturer's express warranty on a vehicle was not governed by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, specifically 15 U.S.C. § 2304, but was governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, O.C.G.A. §§ 11-2-508,11-2-605, and11-2-607(3)(a) as the warranty was a limited warranty. Knight v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 272 Ga. App. 319, 612 S.E.2d 546 (2005).
Cited in Imex Int'l v. Wires Eng'g, 261 Ga. App. 329, 583 S.E.2d 117 (2003).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, §§ 651-654.
6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, § 2:533.
U.L.A.- Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2-605.
ALR.
- Right of party who has once refused to perform to have specific performance of contract, 2 A.L.R. 416.
Applicability of provision in contract of sale for return of article, where article delivered does not answer to description, 30 A.L.R. 321.
Contracts of sale or return as distinguished from contracts for sale on approval, 52 A.L.R. 589.