American Sec. Van Lines, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 24 October 1974
• Docket Number: No. 49818,No. 2,49818,2
• Citation: 133 Ga.App. 368,210 S.E.2d 832
• Parties: AMERICAN SECURITY VAN LINES, INC. v. AMOCO OIL COMPANY
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 832

210 S.E.2d 832

133 Ga.App. 368

AMERICAN SECURITY VAN LINES, INC. v. AMOCO OIL COMPANY.

No. 49818.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Oct. 24, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1974.

Harris Bullock, Atlanta, for appellant.

David H. Fink, Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

EBERHARDT, Presiding Judge.

The question presented by this appeal is whether or not appellee's assignor released American Security Van Lines, Inc. from a claim for damaged household goods. American moved the household goods of W. E. Lamberth, an employee of the appellee. Lamberth submitted a claim against American for household goods that were damaged during the move. During negotiations for settlement of this claim American sent two checks to the Lamberths; one for $189.66, which did not contain a release provision, and one week later, a second check for $660.55 which contained a general release. Both checks were endorsed by Mr. Lamberth and cashed. Mrs. Lamberth stated in her deposition and affidavit that the second check was accompanied by a separate written release for the same amount of the check, that she consulted with her husband and together they decided to talk to Mr. Brady, an employee of American, before endorsing the check; that she believed the claim to be worth more than they had received; that Mr. Brady told her that the release on the back of the check did not mean anything as long as she did not sign the separate release, and that the two checks were only partial payment and could be accepted without releasing the entire claim. The separate release, also a general release, was unsigned and retained by the Lamberths and was made a part of the record. American has produced no evidence contrary to Mrs. Lamberth's version of these facts. Subsequently, the Lamberths assigned their claim to the appellee who brought this action. American defended on the grounds of the release and moved for summary judgment, the denial of which was certified for appeal. Held:

'Where one who can real signs a contract without apprising himself of its contents, otherwise than by accepting representations made by the opposite party, with whom there exists no fiduciary or confidential relation, he cannot defend an action based on it, or have it canceled or reformed, on the ground that it does not contain the contract actually made, unless it should appear that at the time he signed it some such emergency existed as would excuse his failure to read it, or that his failure to read it was brought about by some misleading artifice or device perpetrated by the opposite party, amounting to actual fraud such as would reasonably prevent him from reading it. (Cits.)' Morrison v. Roberts, 195 Ga. 45, 23 S.E.2d 164. The statements made by Brady to the Lamberths were not such as would prevent her from reading the release, and, in fact, both Mr. and Mrs. Lamberth read it. See Southern Stages v. Fullington, 66 Ga.App. 773, 19 S.E.2d 324. Furthermore, the statements were not of a material fact but were legal opinions as to the effect of signing or not signing the release. 'The general rule is well settled that fraud cannot be predicated upon misrepresentations of law or misrepresentations as to matters of law. Everyone is presumed to know the law and therefore can not in legal contemplation be deceived by erroneous statements of law, and such representations are ordinarily regarded as mere expressions of opinion, and this is especially so where there is no confidential relationship between the parties. (Cits.)' Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Booth, 116 Ga.App. 410, 413, 157 S.E.2d 877, 879; Swofford v. Glaze, 207 Ga. 532, 63 S.E.2d 342; Clinton v. State Farm &c. Co., 110 Ga.App. 417(2a), 138 S.E.2d 687. There was no confidential relationship between Brady and the Lamberths, who were direct adversaries in the negotiations. See, Wheat v. Montgomery, 130 Ga.App. 202(3), 202 S.E.2d 664; Clinton v. State Farm &c. Co., 110 Ga.App. 417(2b), 138 S.E.2d 687, supra.

The facts distinguish this case from Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. Fisher, 72 Ga.App. 717, 34 S.E.2d 906 cited by appellee, and other cases, e.g., Heard v. Johnson, 126 Ga.App. 222, 190 S.E.2d 455; Industrial Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 62 Ga.App. 630, 9 S.E.2d 121; Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Walker, 53 Ga.App. 80, 184 S.E. 776. This is not a case where the circumstances of the defrauded party, the inadequacy of the consideration,...