Chesnut v. Al Means Ford, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 41931,41931,1 |
| Citation | 113 Ga.App. 623,149 S.E.2d 410 |
| Parties | Gall CHESNUT et al. v. AL MEANS FORD, INC |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
The petition-alleging that the defendant automobile dealer had orally agreed, as a term of the contract for the sale of a new automobile, to pay off the existing balance due by the plaintiff prospective buyers on a note secured by the automobile being traded in; that the plaintiffs were induced by the defendant to sign a blank sale contract; that when they saw a copy of the contract as filled in by the defendant the space for the 'amount owing' on their traded-in automobile contained the word 'none'; that the defendants had failed to pay off said note, causing the plaintiffs to be sued thereon-set out a cause of action for fraud and deceit, the contract as filled in by the defendants being capable of being construed as containing a representation of the past and then-existing facts that the defendant had paid off the note as agreed and, therefore, that no amount was owing thereon.
Gail and Roy Chesnut brought an action for damages for fraud and deceit against Al Means Ford, Inc. The petition as amended alleged substantially as follows: That the plaintiff wife told the defendant automobile dealer that she and her coplaintiff husband wished to purchase an automobile if satisfactory terms could be arranged; that they wished to trade in as part payment on the proposed purchase an automobile in which they owned an equity, but that said automobile was security for a note and they would not be financially able to buy the new automobile unless some arrangements would be made to pay off the loan; that the defendant's agent assured her that this could be done and orally agreed to allow them $402.36 plus the paying off of the note as the trade-in value; that said agent suggested that she sign a blank contract so that he could obtain the exact figures, which she did; that when the plaintiffs received a copy of the completed written sale contract, the space for the amount owing on the trade-in automobile was filled in as 'none,' leading them to believe that the defendant had paid off the note as agreed; that about a month after the transaction was completed, the plaintiffs were sued on the note by its holder and when she asked the defendant's agent about the note, he informed her that nothing could be done to get it paid and that, as to his representation that it would be paid, 'salesmen do that every day'; 'that the representation that said Union Finance note would be paid as part of the consideration for purchase of the said 1964 Ford automobile, and the representation by the aforesaid entry on the said conditional bill of sale, Exhibit 'A', that it had been paid were made by the defendant, acting through its said agents and employees, Fuller and Barnes, as aforesaid; that said representations were knowingly and with design false; that they were made for the purpose and with the intent of deceiving and defrauding plaintiffs by inducing them to enter into a contract for the purchase of a new automobile, knowing they would not do so unless said note was paid off; that said representations did deceive and defraud plaintiffs, and were made at the time of said transaction and as an existing part thereof; that plaintiffs did not know said representations were false, and that they relied upon said representations to their damage as aforesaid; * * * that the false and fraudulent statements of defendant's agents as aforesaid, made for the purpose of inducing them to enter into said contract, and which did induce them to enter therein, and the fraudulent statement aforesaid in the contract itself showing no balance due on the car traded in, constitute one connected scheme and chain of events whereby plaintiffs were defrauded out of a part of their trade-in allowance as aforesaid; and plaintiffs have elected to waive the breach of the contract on the part of the defendant in failing to pay off the prior note as aforesaid, and have elected to sue defendant for the fraud and deceit in procuring siad contract.' The defendant filed general and special demurrers to the petition, which it renewed to the petition as amended. The court sustained the renewed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SCM Corp. v. Thermo Structural Products, Inc.
...to constitute a waiver as a matter of law. Atlanta Car Wash, Inc. v. Schwab, 215 Ga. 319(2), 110 S.E.2d 341; Chestnut v. Al Means Ford, 113 Ga.App. 623, 626, 149 S.E.2d 410. 7. In a series of related enumerations, appellants complain of the trial court's refusal to charge in accordance with......
-
Georgia Real Estate Commission v. James, 58514
...386(1), 100 S.E. 776; Bullard v. Western Waterproofing Co., 63 Ga.App. 547, 548, 11 S.E.2d 713. Accord, Chesnut v. Al Means Ford, Inc., 113 Ga.App. 623, 625, 149 S.E.2d 410; Jackson v. Brown, 209 Ga. 78(2), 70 S.E.2d 756. To the rule that actionable fraud does not arise from a mere failure ......
-
Krawagna v. H & S Liquor, Inc., 70885
...be said that defendants waived the fraud merely by making payments upon the obligation which they assumed. See Chesnut v. Al Means Ford, 113 Ga.App. 623, 149 S.E.2d 410. Judgment BANKE, C.J., and BENHAM, J., concur. ...
-
Lenny's, Inc. v. Allied Sign Erectors, Inc., 67479
...signing of the instrument is the issue. [Cit.]" Williams v. Toomey, 173 Ga. 199 (2), 159 S.E. 866. See also Chesnut v. Al Means Ford, Inc., 113 Ga.App. 623, 626, 149 S.E.2d 410. "Where the purchaser of personal property has been injured by the false and fraudulent representations of the sel......