§ 11-2-719. Contractual Modification or Limitation of Remedy

1. Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this Code section and of Code Section 11-2-718 on liquidation and limitation of damages:
   1. The agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for those provided in this article and may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under this article, as by limiting the buyer’s remedies to return of the goods and repayment of the price or to repair and replacement of nonconforming goods or parts; and
   2. Resort to a remedy as provided is optional unless the remedy is expressly agreed to be exclusive, in which case it is the sole remedy.
2. Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this title.
3. Consequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable. Limitation of consequential damages for injury to the person in the case of consumer goods is prima facie unconscionable but limitation of damages where the loss is commercial is not.

History. Code 1933, § 109A-2-719, enacted by Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1.

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

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 comparing consumer remedies under the Magnuson-Moss Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312) and the U.C.C., see 27 Mercer L. Rev. 1111 (1976).

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 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, “Impracticability As Risk Allocation: The Effect of Changed Circumstances upon Contract Obligations for the Sale of Goods,” see 22 Ga. L. Rev. 503 (1988).

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