Harris v

Hine, 232 Ga. 183, 50 11-2-105 205 S.E.2d 847, 1974 Ga. LEXIS 900 (1974). Sale of horse for recreational use. — Transaction for purchase of a horse, apparently for recreational use, while possibly a casual sale, nevertheless, is provided for in the Uniform Commercial Code and is a transaction in goods. Key v. Bagen, 136 Ga. App. 373, 221 S.E.2d 234, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1355 (1975). The sale of water is the sale of goods whether delivery is made through a waterworks system or in bottles. Hence, the sale of water by a municipality is the sale of goods and a transaction which is governed by Art. 2 of the UCC. Zepp v. Mayor of Athens, 180 Ga. App. 72, 348 S.E.2d 673, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 2058 (1986). Cemetery plot outside UCC. — Cemetery plot is not movable and thus falls outside the Uniform Commercial Code’s definition of goods. Odelia v. Alderwoods (Ga.), LLC, 823 Fed. Appx. 742, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 24616 (11th Cir. 2020). son, 176 Ga. App. 42, 335 S.E.2d 157, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2237 (1985). Contract for sale of crops is not invalid merely because contract was executed before crop in question was planted. Mitchell-Huntley Cotton Co. v. Lawson, 377 F. Supp. 661, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10836 (M.D. Ga. 1973). Contract for sale of goods not yet in existence. — Although a contract may be invalid because its execution was fraudulently induced, it will not be inoperative because it involves goods which are nonexistent at the time of the execution of the contract. Cone Mills Corp. v. A.G. Estes, Inc., 377 F. Supp. 222, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9220 (N.D. Ga. 1974). A contract to sell, as distinguished from an actual sale, can relate to a commodity which is not in existence at the time the contract is executed. Taunton v. Allenberg Cotton Co., 378 F. Supp. 34, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10649 (M.D. Ga. 1973). Future Goods Sale of fungible goods without specific identification. — O.C.G.A. § 11-2105 does not forbid sale of fungible goods without specific identification. Cone Mills Corp. v. A.G. Estes, Inc., 377 F. Supp. 222, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9220 (N.D. Ga. 1974). Peanuts were a farm commodity, and peanuts were also “goods” for purposes of applying the Statute of Frauds within the Uniform Commercial Code. Brooks Peanut Co. v. Great S. Peanut, LLC, 322 Ga. App. 801, 746 S.E.2d 272, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 618 (2013). Contracts for future delivery of commodities where parties contemplate actual delivery are valid. Taunton v. Allenberg Cotton Co., 378 F. Supp. 34, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10649 (M.D. Ga. 1973). Contract to sell future crop is sale of goods within scope of O.C.G.A. § 11-2105. R.N. Kelly Cotton Merchant, Inc. v. York, 379 F. Supp. 1075, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11445 (M.D. Ga. 1973), aff’d, 494 F.2d 41, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8552 (5th Cir. 1974); Seminole Peanut Co. v. Good- Fungible Goods