Doanes v. Nalley Chevrolet, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 39400,No. 1,39400,1 |
| Citation | 105 Ga.App. 846,125 S.E.2d 717 |
| Parties | Onzelo DOANES v. NALLEY CHEVROLET, INC |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The petition in this case lacked an essential element to state a cause of action as it affirmatively shows that plaintiff had no right to rely on the misrepresentation.
2. Under the facts of this case, the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition.
Plaintiff's original petition was brought to recover $625.58, allegedly due him by reason of his trading his car to and purchasing another from the defendant. The petition charged that an agent of the defendant orally agreed that the plaintiff would be allowed $1700 for his vehicle traded to the defendant but that the contract as written allowed him only $1,074.42; and that plaintiff was defrauded by misrepresentation, trickery, and misstatements by an agent of the defendant upon which he relied to his detriment and lost the sum alleged.
Defendant filed general and special demurrers to the petition. The trial judge sustained the general demurrer, giving the plaintiff thirty days within which to amend, but did not pass upon the other demurrers.
Plaintiff thereupon amended, charging in substance that an agent of the defendant represented to him that the car he traded in had been appraised at $1,700, which would be the allowance on the car he was buying; that the agent told the plaintiff that if he would sign the retail buyer's order the agent would get him an additional $200, making a total allowance of $1,900; that the plaintiff relied upon these representations, and having complete confidence in them, signed the order, with the spaces left blank where the allowance for his car was inserted later, but not in the amount represented to him.
Thereafter, the defendant filed renewed and additional demurrers. The trial judge sustained the defendant's general demurrer to the petition as amended. Plaintiff excepted to the order sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition.
C. M. Seward, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Smith, Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hancock, Glover McGhee, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
In Georgia, the essential elements of a cause of action for the common law tort of deceit based upon fraud have been stated to be: Snow's Laundry & Dry Cleaning Co. v. Georgia Power Co., 61 Ga.App. 402, 405, 6 S.E.2d 159.
In such a suit it is essential to allege, not only that a material misrepresentation was made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to act, but also that plaintiff had a right to act in reliance upon the misrepresentation and did so to his injury.
Attached to the plaintiff's petition was a photostat copy of the 'retail buyer order' which the plaintiff signed and which under the allegations was completed down to the line setting forth the total cash delivered price. Above this line, and therefore it appeared on the order when the plaintiff signed it, is the following language: 'I understand and agree to pay 78.47 per mo for 36 mo's if I have my own Ins. and if I do not my payments will be 88.47 per mo. [signed] Onzelo Doanes.'
It is apparent that this portion of the contract was particularly called to the plaintiff's attention as he placed his signature immediately under the statement as well as at the bottom of the page in the space for the buyer's signature. The monthly payment of $78.47 for thirty-six months reveals, by simple arithmetic, the amount of the total payment the plaintiff was to make. The plaintiff thus could have determined the amount of allowance he received for his old car by making a few further arithmetical calculations, taking into account any unpaid balance on the car he was trading in, the rate of interest, and other charges assessable for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Techdata Corp., Inc.
...reported decisions. See, e. g., Daugert v. Holland Furnace Co., 107 Ga.App. 566, 130 S.E.2d 763 (1963); Doanes v. Nalley Chevrolet, Inc., 105 Ga.App. 846, 847, 125 S.E.2d 717 (1962); Vaughan v. Oxenborg, 105 Ga.App. 295, 298, 124 S.E.2d 436 (1962); Anderson v. Macy & Co., 101 Ga.App. 894, 8......
-
Sutker v. Pennsylvania Ins. Co.
...and proximate injury.' Snow's Laundry &c. Co. v. Georgia Power Co., 61 Ga.App. 402, 405, 6 S.E.2d 159.' Doanes v. Nalley Chevrolet, Inc., 105 Ga.App. 846, 847, 125 S.E.2d 717.' Daugert v. Holland Furnace Co., 107 Ga.App. 566, 569, 130 S.E.2d 763, 765. It is not necessary to test the petitio......
-
Catrett v. Landmark Dodge, Inc.
...161, 407 S.E.2d 64 (1991). 10. See id. at 164, 407 S.E.2d 64. 11. See id. at 165, 407 S.E.2d 64; see also Doanes v. Nalley Chevrolet, 105 Ga.App. 846, 847-848(1), 125 S.E.2d 717 (1962) (claimant could not justifiably rely on alleged representation that he would receive a greater trade-in al......
-
All Am. Life & Cas. Co. v. Saunders
...on the fraudulent statement. Alpha Kappa Psi Bldg. Corp. v. Kennedy, 90 Ga.App. 587, 591, 83 S.E.2d 580; Doanes v. Nalley Chevrolet, Inc., 105 Ga.App. 846, 847, 125 S.E.2d 717; Dickey & Co. v. Leonard, 77 Ga. I would affirm the lower court, and I therefore dissent. ...