Cristal v. Harmon

Decision Date05 January 1976
Docket NumberNo. 50997,No. 2,50997,2
Citation137 Ga.App. 153,223 S.E.2d 210
PartiesSeymour CRISTAL v. Alton HARMON et al
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Ronald N. Winston, Drew J. Kovalak, Atlanta, for appellant.

Spence, Garrett & Spence, D. William Garrett, Jr., Alpharetta, for appellees.

PANNELL, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal by a landlord from the denial of a summary judgment in his favor in an action against the tenants for rentals and water and sewer charge bills. The appellant, Seymour Cristal subleased for a period of five years beginning August 1, 1972, a restaurant premises and certain equipment and furnishings therein to Alton Harmon, Janie Harmon, Charles T. Webb and Laura Webb. The sublease, hereinafter referred to as the lease, purported on its face to have been executed by the parties August 1, 1972, for a term of five years. The lease provided the premises shall be used as a restaurant. Paragraph 10 of the lease provided: 'Lessee accepts the leased premises in their present condition and as suited for the uses intended by Lessee. Lessee shall, at his own expense, keep and maintain the said premises and appurtenances and every part thereof, in good order, and repair. Lessee agrees also to keep all fixtures pertaining to heating, water, sewer, electrical and sprinkler systems (if any) in good order and repair and agrees also that he is liable for any damage to such heating, water, sewer, electrical and sprinkler systems (if any) if such damage is due to negligence of Lessee. Lessee agrees to return said premises to Lessor at the expiration of this lease in as good condition and repair as when first received, natural wear and tear, damage by storm, fire, lightning, earthquake or other casualty alone excepted. Lessor shall have no maintenance or repair obligations of any nature whatsoever.' (The italicized portion was typed in.) Just before the signatures under 'special stipulations' there were certain additional provisions including a lease of equipment, a list of which was attached. These matters were included in Paragraph 5 of the special stipulations. The lease also contains this provision: 'This lease contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto and no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, oral or otherwise, between the parties not embodied herein, shall be of any force or effect.'

The tenants abandoned the premises approximately two years after entering into the lease and refused to pay further rentals under the lease. The landlord brought an action to recover the rentals due, and by amendment included further rentals, less credits for rentals paid by another lessee, which releasing the contract permitted. The amendment also sought recovery of unpaid water and sewer assessment bills. The defendants, in their answer, admitted the vacating of the premises and the failure to pay the rentals claimed and pleaded that the landlord had made fraudulent representations as to the condition of the equipment and in particular the air conditioning system, which was a part of the building leased and was not listed on the equipment portion of the lease. They sought damages for the amounts paid for repairs and punitive damages. The evidence was in dispute as to whether the lease was actually executed on August 1, 1972, or at a later time; there being some evidence that it was signed after August 1st, but it is undisputed that the tenants went into possession before the signing of the lease for a period of seven to ten days, cleaning up and getting the premises in shape for opening. Certain of the equipment was found to be defective and the landlord said he would pay for the repairs. At the signing of the lease the tenants submitted to the landlord their bill for expenses and repairing various pieces of equipment. The landlord objected as to the amount and said he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Smith v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 16, 1981
    ...responsibility, and opportunity, to protect himself. See Hannah v. Belger, 436 F.2d 96, 98-99 (5th Cir. 1971); Cristal v. Harmon, 137 Ga.App. 153, 155-56, 223 S.E.2d 210 (1976); Ansley v. Forest Services, Inc., 135 Ga.App. 745, 747-48, 218 S.E.2d 914 Nor do the plaintiff's final two argumen......
  • SCM Corp. v. Thermo Structural Products, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 11, 1980
    ...Even though a party electing to affirm a contract is ordinarily bound by a merger clause contained therein (see, e. g., Cristal v. Harmon, 137 Ga.App. 153, 223 S.E.2d 210; Kot v. Richard P. Rita Personnel, etc., Inc., 134 Ga.App. 438, 214 S.E.2d 690), a merger clause is without application ......
  • Levine v. Peachtree-Twin Towers Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 27, 1982
    ...alleged misrepresentations." Holbrook v. Capital Auto. Co., 111 Ga.App. 601, 604, 142 S.E.2d 288 (1965). See also Cristal v. Harmon, 137 Ga.App. 153, 223 S.E.2d 210 (1976). Likewise, to the extent that appellants rely upon the appellees' "concealment" of both the existence of the neighborin......
  • Pepsico Truck Rental, Inc. v. Eastern Foods, Inc., 54937
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 9, 1978
    ...are "inadmissible to add to, take from, or vary a written contract." Code Ann. § 20-704(1). See Code Ann. § 38-501; Cristal v. Harmon, 137 Ga.App. 153, 223 S.E.2d 210. Of similar effect is a "merger" clause contained in the contract. Cristal v. Harmon, supra. The jury was therefore authoriz......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT