Georgia § 11-2-315 - Implied warranty: fitness for particular purpose.

§ 11-2-315. Implied warranty: fitness for particular purpose.

Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under Code Section 11-2-316 an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose. (Code 1933, § 109A-2 - 315, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1.) Cross references. - Nonapplicability of implied warranties to blood transfusions, organ transplants, etc., §§ 11-2-316 , 51-1-28 . Law reviews. - For article discussing manufacturer's warranty of merchantability and fitness under former § 96-307, see 10 Mercer L. Rev. 272 (1959). For article, "Sales Warranties Under Georgia's Uniform Commercial Code," see 1 Ga. St. B.J. 191 (1964). For article, "Georgia's New Statutory Liability for Manufacturers: An Inadequate Legislative Response," see 2 Ga. L. Rev 538 (1968). 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 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 applicability of implied warranty provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code to construction contracts, see 28 Emory L.J. 335 (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 surveying recent judicial developments in commercial law, see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 13 (1979). For annual survey of law of contracts, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 107 (1986). 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 note discussing implied warranties in the sale of second-hand goods, see 17 Mercer L. Rev. 455 (1966). For note discussing products liability actions based on breach of implied warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code, see 4 Ga. L. Rev. 164 (1969). For note, "Allowance of Punitive Damages in Products Liability Claims," see 6 Ga. L. Rev. 613 (1972). For note, "Buyer's Right to Revoke Acceptance Against the Automobile Manufacturer for Breach of its Continuing Warranty of Repair or Replacement," see 7 Ga. L. Rev. 711 (1973). 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 comment on Felder v. Neeves, 36 Ga. App. 41 , 135 S.E. 219 (1926), see 1 Ga. L. Rev. No. 1 p. 51 (1927). For comment on Revlon, Inc. v. Murdock, 103 Ga. App. 842 , 120 S.E.2d 912 (1961), see 24 Ga. B.J. 271 (1961). 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).