---
title: O.C.G.A. § 13-3-44. Effect of promise which is reasonably expected to induce action or forbearance by promisee or third person; requirement as to proof of reliance in cases of charitable subscriptions or marriage settlements.
collection: code
id: 13-3-44
cite_as: O.C.G.A. § 13-3-44 (2025)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/13-3-44
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/13-3-44.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/13-3-44/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/t13-(v11)-2010-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=e4dbdcfd_0#page=203
date: 2025
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/code/13-3.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/code/13-3-43.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/code/13-3-45.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
current_through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly
heading_path: CONTRACTS / ELEMENTS AND FORMATION GENERALLY / CONSIDERATION
---

# O.C.G.A. § 13-3-44. Effect of promise which is reasonably expected to induce action or forbearance by promisee or third person; requirement as to proof of reliance in cases of charitable subscriptions or marriage settlements.

(a) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.

(b) A charitable subscription or a marriage settlement is binding under subsection (a) of this Code section without proof that the promise induced action or forbearance.

## History

Code 1933, § 20-302.2, enacted by Ga. L. 1981, p. 876, § 2.

## Law Reviews

For article discussing the anachronistic nature of the Georgia Contracts Code as dramatized by comparing the doctrine of consideration as it is formulated in the Restatements of Contracts and in Code 1933, Title 20 (now this title), and the interpretative approach Georgia courts have taken in dealing with such Code, see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 499 (1979). (But see amendments by Ga. L. 1981, p. 876.) For article surveying developments in Georgia real property law from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 219 (1981).

For note, ‘‘Promissory Estoppel in Georgia,’’ see 2 Mercer L. Rev. 405 (1951). For note, ‘‘Contingency Financing Clauses in Real Estate Sales Contracts in Georgia,’’ see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 186 (1973).