Contracts of Sale for Future Delivery of Cotton, Grain, Stocks, or Other Commodities, Absent Bona Fide Intention of Parties as to Delivery, Execution of Contract Upon Floor of Exchange Declared Null and Void; Penalty for Entering Into or Assisting Entering Into Such Contracts

  1. Law
  2. Georgia Code
  3. Contracts
  4. Contracts for Future Delivery of Cotton, Grain, Etc
  5. Contracts of Sale for Future Delivery of Cotton, Grain, Stocks, or Other Commodities, Absent Bona Fide Intention of Parties as to Delivery, Execution of Contract Upon Floor of Exchange Declared Null and Void; Penalty for Entering Into or Assisting Entering Into Such Contracts

Checkout our iOS App for a better way to browser and research.

  1. Any contract of sale for future delivery of cotton, grain, stocks, or other commodities shall be null and void and unenforceable in any court by any party thereto where it is not the bona fide intention of a party to the contract that the cotton, grain, stocks, or other commodities mentioned therein are to be delivered, but that the contract be settled according to or upon the basis of the public market quotations or prices made on any board of trade, exchange, or other similar institution, without any actual bona fide execution and the carrying out of such contract upon the floor of such exchange, board of trade, or similar institution, in accordance with the rules thereof.
  2. Any person, either as agent or principal, who enters into or assists in making a contract of sale for the future delivery of cotton, grain, stocks, or other commodities of the nature provided for in subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned for a period not exceeding two years.

(Ga. L. 1929, p. 245, §§ 3, 6; Code 1933, §§ 20-603, 20-9901.)

Cross references.

- Gambling generally, § 16-12-20.

Law reviews.

- For note, "Recovery of Losses on Cotton Futures," see 1 Ga. L. Rev. No. 1, p. 43 (1927).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Cited in Fenner & Beane v. Calhoun, 56 Ga. App. 823, 194 S.E. 51 (1937); Mitchell-Huntley Cotton Co. v. Lawson, 377 F. Supp. 661 (M.D. Ga. 1973).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Violation of statute relating to bucket shops or bucket shop transactions as ground of action by customer or patron, 113 A.L.R. 853.


Download our app to see the most-to-date content.