Contractors Equipment Co. v. Gottfried

• Decision Date: 04 October 1976
• Docket Number: No. 3,No. 52717,52717,3
• Citation: 139 Ga.App. 784,229 S.E.2d 558
• Parties: CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. Carl GOTTFRIED
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 558

229 S.E.2d 558

139 Ga.App. 784

CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. Carl GOTTFRIED.

No. 52717.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

Oct. 4, 1976.

Thomas C. Jones, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.

McCord, Cooper & Voyles, James M. Kimbrough, hapeville, for appellee.

The sole question is this appeal is whether the evidence supports the jury's verdict for the appellee on an oral contract.

DEEN, Presiding Judge.

1. The evidence for the appellee was that the appellant agreed to pay him a commission of one-half the net profit on the sale of equipment if he were successful in obtaining a purchaser. The appellee testified that he did in fact secure a buyer and that the sale was consummated but that the appellant refused to pay him his commission. The appellant urges that the purchaser was not secured through the appellee's efforts. 'One may accept an offer by doing the acts contemplated by an offer, thus creating an enforceable contract, and where, as here, the defendant denies that the plaintiff performed these acts, whether the offer was acdepted in this manner is a matter of proof and a question for the jury.' Weikert v. Logue, 121 Ga.App. 171, 173, 173 S.E.2d 268, 270.

2. The appellee sued for 'a sum of equal to one-half of the net profit of the transaction.' The evidence shows that the equipment was bought by the appellant for $24,000 and sold for $36,000, or $12,000 gross profit. 'Where a party sues for specific damages, he has the burden of showing the amount of the loss, and of showing it in such a way that the jury may calculate the amount from the figures furnished, and will not be placed in the position where their allowance of any sum would be mere guesswork. However, the party does not lose he right of action for the damages because he cannot furnish exact figures.' Nat. Refrigerator & Butchers Supply Co. v. Parmalee, 9 Ga.App. 725, 726, 72 S.E. 191, 192.

On cross examination the appellee was asked what he meant by 'net profit' and replied that as part of the sales agreement certain repairs were to be made to the equipment by the appellant. He further responded: 'I was told by Mr. Ridings and Mr. Propst that they cost $1,000 to do.' The appellant urges that this testimony was hearsay, had no probative value and does not support the jury's verdict; we are cited to Western Geophysical Co. v. Rowell, 126 Ga.App. 427, 190 S.E.2d 921. The argument is that the appellee has proved $12,000 in gross profit but his evidence as to...