Crooks v. Chapman Co.
| Decision Date | 28 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 46231,No. 3,46231,3 |
| Citation | 124 Ga.App. 718,185 S.E.2d 787 |
| Parties | , 10 UCC Rep.Serv. 336 Kenneth E. CROOKS v. CHAPMAN COMPANY, Inc |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Poole, Pearce & Cooper, Robert R. Smith, Atlanta, for appellant.
Hurt, Hill & Richardson, T. Cullen Gilliland, W. Seaborn Jones, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
Plaintiff appeals from the judgment in a suit to recover earnest money paid under a contract for the purchase of a radio station and which was subsequently disbursed by the defendant escrow agent to the seller as liquidated damages upon the seller's declaration of plaintiff's default.
The seller considered, and so notified plaintiff, that he had failed to perform that condition of the contract by which plaintiff had agreed to 'cooperate fully in diligently seeking FCC's consent to assignment of station's license from seller to buyer'. The contract was executed on May 5. On October 9, defendant forwarded to plaintiff a letter from the seller stating that if the FCC application were not filed by November 5, the seller would consider that plaintiff had failed to perform the term quoted above. On December 8, defendant formally notified plaintiff that the seller had requested disbursement of the earnest money (as provided in the contract for liquidated damages in the event of breach) and that unless he received evidence within ten days to show that the seller was not entitled, he would disburse it.
In order to recover, plaintiff has to carry the burden of proving that he had acted diligently to bring about the license transfer, within a reasonable time, in order to show that the disbursement of liquidated damages was made in bad faith by the escrow agent.
1. The trial court did not err in refusing to admit into evidence an agreement between the seller and another purchaser made on Movember 21. It was completely irrelevant to the question of whether plaintiff had so failed to perform a condition within a reasonable time that the seller was justified in declaring a default on November 5.
2. The court did not err in charging that 'If you find that the plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that six months after the execution of the contract was reasonable time, and if you find the application was not filed within that period, it will be your duty to return a verdict for the defendant.' Plaintiff contends that the court injected an artificial time limit into a contract which specified no time limit and which was not warranted by the evidence. The contention is without merit. Where no time for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhode Island Charities Trust v. Engelhard Corp.
...hand way of saying substantial compliance with the spirit, and not merely the letter, of a contract.") (citing Crooks v. Chapman Co., 124 Ga.App. 718, 185 S.E.2d 787 (1971)). B. Interpreting the Indenture Using the Doctrine of Good In the case sub judice, this Court's inquiry into the appli......
-
Bowman v. WALNUT MTN. PROP. OWNERS ASSOC.
...is a shorthand way of saying substantial compliance with the spirit, and not merely the letter, of a contract. Crooks v. Chapman Co., 124 Ga.App. 718, 720, 185 S.E.2d 787 (1971)." Fisher v. Toombs County Nursing Home, 223 Ga.App. 842, 845-846(2), 479 S.E.2d 180 (1996); see also OCGA § 13-4-......
-
Davis v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
...... must be substantially in compliance with the spirit and the letter of the contract...."). See also Crooks v. Chapman Co., 124 Ga.App. 718, 185 S.E.2d 787 (1971). Good faith has been interpreted by Georgia courts as "a minimum standard of conduct in any contract ... call[ing] for 'substa......
-
Ih Riverdale v. Mcchesney Capital Partners
...constituted a failure to perform).4 Generally, what is reasonable time is a question of fact for the jury. Crooks v. Chapman Co., 124 Ga.App. 718, 719(2), 185 S.E.2d 787 (1971). In this case there is an issue of fact as to whether the deadline imposed by MCP was reasonable under the circums......
-
Good Faith Performance
...542 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970) (same); Blish v. Thompson Automatic Arms Corp., 64 A.2d 581, 597 (Del. 1948) (same); Crooks v. Chapman Co., 185 S.E.2d 787, 789 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971) (same); Martindell v. Lake Shore Nat’l Bank, 154 N.E.2d 683, 690 (Ill. 1958) (same); Midwest Mgmt. Corp. v. Stephens,......