Condios, Inc. v. Driver, 55202
| Decision Date | 17 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 55202,55202,1 |
| Citation | 145 Ga.App. 537,244 S.E.2d 85 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CONDIOS, INC. v. Maynor A. DRIVER et al |
Kyle Yancey, Atlanta, for appellant.
E. Carl Prince, Jr., Carrollton, for appellees.
Appellant brought this suit to enjoin a foreclosure and to recover damages allegedly resulting from misrepresentations by appellees and their agent which were made to induce appellant to enter into a contract to purchase a hotel. Appellant asserts that appellees, with knowledge that their representations were false, stated that the hotel complied with all applicable safety codes, when, in fact, they had been informed by the fire marshal that the building could no longer be used as a hotel because of numerous fire hazards. It was not until six months after the purchase, appellant asserts, that it was informed by the fire marshal of the fire hazards.
Appellees answered the suit, denying the fraud and counterclaiming for the amount due on a note executed by appellant. This appeal is brought from the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees on both the main suit and their counterclaim. The injunction is not at issue on this appeal.
1. The contract here contains a clause reading, "No representation, promise or inducement not included in this contract shall be binding upon any party hereto." Appellees contend, correctly, that the presence of that clause prevents appellant from showing reliance on any representations made before the contract was signed.
" Corbin v. Lee, 121 Ga.App. 784, 785, 175 S.E.2d 102, 104.
Appellant has made no tender of the property nor taken any other action to rescind the contract. It has, therefore, elected to affirm the contract and seek damages.
Hannah v. Shauck, 131 Ga.App. 834, 835, 207 S.E.2d 239, 240.
One of the essential elements of an action for fraud is "justifiable reliance by the plaintiff." City Dodge, Inc. v. Gardner, 232 Ga. 766, 770, fn., 208 S.E.2d 794, 797. Having made its election, appellant is bound by the provisions of the contract and cannot allege reliance on any representations made prior to the execution of the contract. See Collier v. Sinkoe, 135 Ga.App. 732(4), 218 S.E.2d 910.
2. Appellant argues that, even if its claim of reliance on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibson v. Home Folks Mobile Home Plaza, Inc.
...from proving the fourth element of a cause of action in fraud and deceit — reliance on the representation. See Condios, Inc. v. Driver, 145 Ga.App. 537, 538, 244 S.E.2d 85 (1978). Thus, where there is no fraud in the execution of the contract, Georgia courts have held that the following exp......
-
Bill Spreen Toyota, Inc. v. Jenquin
...an action in tort for fraud and deceit.' " Hannah v. Shauck, 131 Ga.App. 834, 835 (1), 207 S.E.2d 239 (1974). Condios, Inc. v. Driver, 145 Ga.App. 537, 538, 244 S.E.2d 85 (1978). One of the elements of fraud is justifiable reliance by the plaintiff. City Dodge, supra 232 Ga. at 770, 208 S.E......
-
Keller v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc.
...or sellers in certain circumstances. See, e.g., One-O-One Enters., Inc. v. Caruso, 848 F.2d 1283 (D.C.Cir.1988); Condios, Inc. v. Driver, 145 Ga.App. 537, 244 S.E.2d 85 (1978); Rio Grande Jewelers Supply, Inc. v. Data Gen. Corp., 101 N.M. 798, 689 P.2d 1269 (1984); Danann Realty Corp. v. Ha......
-
Velten v. Regis B. Lippert, Intercat, Inc., 91-9061
...166 Ga.App. 583, 305 S.E.2d 31, 32 (1983); Touche, Inc. v. Dearborn, 161 Ga.App. 188, 291 S.E.2d 35, 38 (1982); Condios, Inc. v. Driver, 145 Ga.App. 537, 244 S.E.2d 85, 86 (1978); Garrett v. Diamond, 144 Ga.App. 428, 240 S.E.2d 912, 913 (1977); Hannah v. Shauck, 131 Ga.App. 834, 207 S.E.2d ......