2022 Georgia Code
Title 11 - Commercial Code
Article 2 - Sales
Part 3 - General Obligation and Construction of Contract
§ 11-2-313. Express Warranties by Affirmation, Promise, Description, Sample

1. Express warranties by the seller are created as follows:
   1. Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise.
   2. Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description.
   3. Any sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or model.
2. It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as “warrant” or “guarantee” or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller’s opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty.

History. Code 1933, § 109A-2-313, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1.

Cross references.

Misbranding of pesticides or devices, § 2-7-53 .

Labeling of fertilizer, § 2-12-6 .

False or misleading statements or claims made in regard to agricultural liming materials, § 2-12-45 .

Misrepresentations made in regard to soil amendments, § 2-12-77 .

Misbranding of commercial feed, § 2-13-9 .

Standards for, labeling of, and adulteration of, food generally, T. 26, C. 2.

Civil action for knowing or negligent selling of unwholesome provisions to another person by use of which damage results to purchaser or the purchaser’s family, § 51-1-23 et seq.

Law reviews.

For article, “Sales Warranties Under Georgia’s Uniform Commercial Code,” see 1 Ga. St. B.J. 191 (1964).

For note, “The Law of Evidence in the Uniform Commercial Code,” see 1 Ga. L. Rev. 44 (1966).

For article discussing aspects of third party practice (impleader) under the Georgia Civil Practice Act, see 4 Ga. St. B.J. 355 (1968).

For article, “Consumer Protection Against Sellers Misrepresentations,” see 20 Mercer L. Rev. 414 (1969).

For article discussing interpretation of warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code, see 4 Ga. L. Rev. 469 (1970).

For article discussing the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, see 9 Ga. L. Rev. 149 (1974).

For article, “Products Liability Law in Georgia: Is Change Coming?,” see 10 Ga. St. B.J. 353 (1974).

For article explaining the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, proposed in Georgia in 1973, see 10 Ga. St. B. J. 409 (1974).

For article discussing ex parte rescission of sales contract for fraud and suit for fraud and deceit, in light of City Dodge, Inc. v. Gardner, 232 Ga. 766 , 208 S.E.2d 794 (1974), see 11 Ga. St. B.J. 172 (1975).

For comment on Redfern Meats, Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 134 Ga. App. 381 , 215 S.E.2d 10 (1975), see 27 Mercer L. Rev. 347 (1975).

For article discussing modification of consumer warranty provisions of the U.C.C. by the Magnuson-Moss Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312) with special emphasis on attempted disclaimers, see 27 Mercer L. Rev. 1111 (1976).

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 article discussing the applicability of warranty provisions under the Uniform Commercial Code to domestic solar energy devices, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 547 (1979).

For article, “Contractual Limitations of Remedy and the Failure of Essential Purpose Doctrine,” see 26 Ga. St. B.J. 113 (1990).

For article, “Products Liability Law in Georgia Including Recent Developments,” see 43 Mercer L. Rev. 27 (1991).

For annual survey article discussing developments in construction law, see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 181 (1999).

For note, “Does the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act Really Prohibit Design Defect Claims?: Examining Federal Preemption in Light of American Home Products Corp. v. Ferrari,” see 26 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 617 (2010).

For note, “Amazon’s Invincibility: The Effect of Defective Third-Party Vendors’ Products on Amazon,” see 53 Ga. L. Rev. 1215 (2019).

For article, “Do’s and Don’ts When Handling a Product Liability Matter in Georgia,” see 25 Ga. St. B.J. 17 (Aug. 2019).