Warranty disputes are disputes over the breach of contractual obligations, and in Georgia there is no separate "warranty act": the legal basis of warranty claims lies in the general norms of the Civil Code — damages for breach of obligation, the additional period and refusal of the contract, and the norm on breach of the conditions of delivery of property in leasing relations.
The Claim for Damages on Breach of Obligation
Upon the debtor's breach of an obligation, the creditor may demand compensation for the damage caused thereby. This rule does not apply where the debtor bears no liability for the breach — the exclusion of liability excludes compensation as well.
Upon the debtor's delay, the creditor may set the debtor a period necessary for the performance of the obligation. If the debtor does not perform even within that time, the creditor has the right, instead of performance, to demand compensation for the damage. Determining an additional period is unnecessary if it is obvious that it will have no consequence, or when special circumstances exist which, considering the interests of both parties, justify the immediate application of the claim for damages.
The Additional Period and Refusal of the Contract
If one party to a bilateral contract breaches an obligation arising from it, the other party may refuse the contract after the expiry in vain of the additional period determined by it for performance. If, given the character of the breach, an additional period is not applicable, a warning is equalled to the determination of an additional period.
If the obligation is breached only in part, the creditor may refuse the contract only where the performance of the remaining part has lost its interest for him. Setting an additional period or a warning is not necessary if it is obvious that they will have no result; if the obligation was not performed within the period determined by the contract and the creditor tied the continuation of the relationship to timely performance; or if, given special grounds and considering bilateral interests, the immediate termination of the contract is justified.
Refusal of the contract is impermissible if: the breach of the obligation is insignificant; particular statutory requirements are breached and, despite this, the creditor may demand that the contract remain in force; the creditor is wholly or predominantly responsible for the breach; or the demand is opposed by a set-off that the debtor has already presented or will present immediately after the refusal. The creditor may refuse the contract even before the arrival of the performance period if it is obvious that grounds for refusal will arise; the debtor, in turn, may set the creditor a reasonable period for the refusal.