§ 11-2-316. Exclusion or Modification of Warranties

1. Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but subject to the provisions of this article on parol or extrinsic evidence (Code Section 11-2-202) negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.
2. Subject to subsection (3) of this Code section, to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that “There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof.”
3. Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this Code section:
   1. Unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like “as is,” “with all faults,” or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer’s attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty; and
   2. When the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the goods or the sample or model as fully as he desired or has refused to examine the goods there is no implied warranty with regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to him; and
   3. An implied warranty can also be excluded or modified by course of dealing or course of performance or usage of trade; and
   4. With respect to the sale of cattle, hogs, and sheep by a licensed auction company or by an agent, there shall be no implied warranty by said auction company or agent that the cattle, hogs, and sheep are free from disease; provided, however, that the provisions of this paragraph shall not be applicable to brucellosis reactor cattle detected at an official state laboratory within 30 days following the date of sale.
4. Remedies for breach of warranty can be limited in accordance with the provisions of this article on liquidation or limitation of damages and on contractual modification of remedy (Code Sections 11-2-718 and 11-2-719).
5. The implied warranty of merchantability under Code Section 11-2-314 and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under Code Section 11-2-315 shall not be applicable to the procurement, processing, storage, distribution, or use of whole human blood, blood plasma, blood products, blood derivatives, or other human tissue or organs for the purpose of injecting, transfusing, incorporating, or transplanting any of them into the human body. The injection, transfusion, or other transfer of blood, blood plasma, blood products, or blood derivatives and the transplanting or other transfer of any tissue, bones, or organs into or unto the human body shall not be considered, for the purpose of this article, commodities subject to sale or barter, but shall be considered as medical services.

History. Code 1933, § 109A-2-316, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1; Ga. L. 1971, p. 457, § 2; Ga. L. 1979, p. 756, § 1.

Cross references.

Prohibition against sale, auction, transfer, or movement of livestock infected with disease or placed under quarantine by Commissioner of Agriculture, § 4-6-2 .

Regulation of labeling of blood, T. 31, C. 24.

For further provisions as to nonapplicability of implied warranties to blood transfusions and organ transplants, § 51-1-28.

Law reviews.

For comment on Felder v. Neeves, 36 Ga. App. 41 , 135 S.E. 219 (1926), see Ga. L. Rev. No. 1 p. 51 (1927).

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

For note discussing implied warranties in the sale of second-hand goods, see 17 Mercer L. Rev. 455 (1966).

For article, “Georgia’s New Statutory Liability for Manufacturers: An Inadequate Legislative Response,” see 2 Ga. L. Rev. 538 (1968).

For comment on Manheim v. Ford Motor Co., 210 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1967), discussing effect of automobile manufacturer’s disclaimer of the Uniform Commercial Code’s implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, see 2 Ga. L. Rev. 314 (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 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 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 surveying Georgia cases dealing with commercial law from June 1977 through May 1978, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 15 (1978).

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 developments in Georgia commercial law from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 33 (1981).

For comment, “Damage Awards and Computer Systems — Trends,” see 35 Emory L.J. 255 (1986).

For note, “Enforcing Manufacturers’ Warranty Exclusions Against Non-Privity Commercial Purchasers: The Need for Uniform Guidelines,” see 20 Ga. L. Rev. 461 (1986).

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

For comment, “U.C.C. Article Two Warranty Disclaimers and the ‘Conspicuousness’ Requirement of Section 2-316,” see 43 Mercer L. Rev. 943 (1992).

For article, “Giving Unconscionability More Muscle: Attorney’s Fees as a Remedy for Contractual Overreaching,” see 44 Ga. L. Rev. 317 (2010).