GA Code § 11-2-602 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 11 - Commercial Code|Article 2 - Sales|Part 6 - Breach, Repudiation, and Excuse|§ 11-2-602. Manner and Effect of Rightful Rejection

  Rejection of goods must be within a reasonable time after their delivery or tender. It is ineffective unless the buyer seasonably notifies the seller.   Subject to the provisions of Code Sections 11-2-603 and 11-2-604 on rejected goods:     After rejection any exercise of ownership by the buyer with respect to any commercial unit is wrongful as against the seller; and   If the buyer has before rejection taken physical possession of goods in which he does not have a security interest under the provisions of this article (subsection (3) of Code Section 11-2-711), he is under a duty after rejection to hold them with reasonable care at the seller's disposition for a time sufficient to permit the seller to remove them; but   The buyer has no further obligations with regard to goods rightfully rejected.    The seller's rights with respect to goods wrongfully rejected are governed by the provisions of this article on seller's remedies in general (Code Section 11-2-703).   (Code 1933, § 109A-2 - 602, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1.)   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).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Rejection based on title.    - O.C.G.A. § 11-2-602 is intended to apply where quantity or quality of goods, or time of delivery, etc., do not conform to terms of sale, but even if this section also has relation to status of title and a rejection is made on that account, the question becomes one of whether rejection is rightful or wrongful, which determination will, of course, ultimately depend on whether or not seller had type of title seller warranted. Cochran v. Horner, 121 Ga. App. 297, 173 S.E.2d 448 (1970).    O.C.G.A. § 11-2-602 recognizes that wrongful rejections may occur and refers to O.C.G.A. § 11-2-703 for seller's remedies in such event, one of which is an action for price. Cochran v. Horner, 121 Ga. App. 297, 173 S.E.2d 448 (1970); Lipsey Motors v. Karp Motors, Inc., 194 Ga. App. 15, 389 S.E.2d 537 (1989).   Reacceptance of goods.    - A buyer who has attempted to reject rather than to accept goods may nonetheless accept them by virtue of buyer's post-rejection conduct with respect to them. Likewise, a buyer who purports to revoke acceptance of goods may be found to have reaccepted them if, after such revocation, buyer performs acts which are inconsistent with the seller's ownership of the goods. Griffith v. Stovall Tire & Marine, Inc., 174 Ga. App. 137, 329 S.E.2d 234 (1985).    A buyer reaccepted a motor vehicle after purported revocation of acceptance, even though the buyer gave sufficient notice that buyer revoked acceptance of the vehicle, when the buyer refused the seller access to it, persisted in efforts to have the vehicle repaired by entities other than the seller, and continued to possess and use the vehicle, which had been driven over 120,000 miles. Griffith v. Stovall Tire & Marine, Inc., 174 Ga. App. 137, 329 S.E.2d 234 (1985).   Rejection of nonconforming goods.    - Within a reasonable time after delivery or tender, the buyer is entitled to reject nonconforming goods under the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 11-2-602 if the buyer reasonably notifies the seller of the rejection. Prudential Metal Supply Corp. v. Atlantic Freight Sales Co., 204 Ga. App. 439, 419 S.E.2d 520 (1992).    Buyer's continued use of a defective copying machine in furtherance of the efficient running of its business was a reacceptance of the machine, and the buyer was not entitled to recover the full contract price of the machine in an action against the seller. W.M. Hobbs, Ltd. v. Accusystems of Ga., Inc., 177 Ga. App. 432, 339 S.E.2d 646 (1986).   Proper rejection of delivered peanuts.   - Seller breached the implied warranty of merchantability by delivering peanuts that were not fit for the ordinary purposes and did not run of even kind, quality, and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; buyer's rejection was proper because it came within a reasonable time, and seller was seasonably notified of the proper rejection. Alimenta (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., 803 F.2d 1160 (11th Cir. 1986).   Issues of fact for trial court.    - Issues such as whether an effective revocation of acceptance was made, whether reasonable notification of revocation was given to the seller, and whether the value of the goods was substantially impaired are ordinarily matters for determination by the trier of fact, even where the buyer has continued to use nonconforming goods after an alleged revocation of acceptance. Griffith v. Stovall Tire & Marine, Inc., 174 Ga. App. 137, 329 S.E.2d 234 (1985).    Granting defendants a directed verdict on a truck buyer's revocation of acceptance claim under O.C.G.A. § 11-2-608 was error when the buyer testified that the truck had been in for repairs more than 30 times, that the buyer had tried to get a replacement or a refund, and that the buyer had continued to use the truck and to pay the note, taxes, and insurance on the truck because the buyer could not afford to buy another truck while attempting to resolve the problems with this one and because the buyer had no other means of transportation; although certain provisions in O.C.G.A. §§ 11-2-602 and11-2-606 might support the unqualified proposition that continued use was inconsistent with a revocation of acceptance, issues such as whether there was effective revocation of acceptance were ordinarily jury matters, and expecting a buyer to discontinue use could be contrary to the UCC's rule of reasonableness. Franklin v. Augusta Dodge, Inc., 287 Ga. App. 818, 652 S.E.2d 862 (2007).   Instructions.    - Where the court fully instructed the jury as to the determinative contract and warranty principles involved in the case, and the charge was adjusted to the evidence, it is not reversible error to fail to charge the precise language of provisions outlining rules and recourses for buyers and sellers. Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. Patron Aviation, Inc., 161 Ga. App. 596, 288 S.E.2d 911 (1982).    Cited in Tennessee-Virginia Constr. Co. v. Willingham, 117 Ga. App. 290, 160 S.E.2d 444 (1968); Trailmobile Div. of Pullman, Inc. v. Jones, 118 Ga. App. 472, 164 S.E.2d 346 (1968); Atlantic Aluminum & Metal Distribs. v. Adams, 123 Ga. App. 387, 181 S.E.2d 101 (1971); Clow Corp. v. Metro Pipeline Co., 442 F. Supp. 583 (N.D. Ga. 1977); Jem Patents, Inc. v. Frost, 147 Ga. App. 839, 250 S.E.2d 547 (1978); Henco Adv., Inc. v. Geographics, Inc., 155 Ga. App. 571, 271 S.E.2d 704 (1980); Bicknell v. B & S Enters., 160 Ga. App. 307, 287 S.E.2d 310 (1981); 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, §§ 647-650.   6 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Commercial Code, §§ 2:506, 2:519.   C.J.S.   - 77A C.J.S., Sales, §§ 189, 197.   U.L.A.   - Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 2-602.   ALR.    - Contracts of sale or return as distinguished from contracts for sale on approval, 52 A.L.R. 589.   Time within which buyer must make inspection, trial, or test to determine whether goods are of requisite quality, 52 A.L.R.2d 900.