Entertainment Developers, Inc. v. Relco, Inc., 68479
| Decision Date | 05 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 68479,68479 |
| Citation | 172 Ga.App. 176,322 S.E.2d 304 |
| Parties | ENTERTAINMENT DEVELOPERS, INC. v. RELCO, INC. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Antonio L. Thomas, Donald M. Dotson, Atlanta, for appellant.
Mark A. Kelley, Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellant Entertainment Developers, Inc. d/b/a Lakeside Club (Lakeside) entered into a written "lease agreement" with Coastal States Equipment Company, Inc. (Coastal States). Appellant Thomas guaranteed to pay all amounts owed by appellant Lakeside under the written agreement. Subsequently, Coastal States assigned its interest in the written agreement to appellee. Appellant Lakeside defaulted and appellee accelerated the amount remaining due under the agreement. Appellee thereafter initiated suit against appellants seeking to recover monies due under the agreement plus attorney fees. Appellants answered and counterclaimed against appellee, alleging breach of implied warranties of merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee as to both appellee's main claim and appellants' counterclaim. Appellants appeal.
1. Appellants contend that summary judgment was erroneously granted because a question of material fact exists as to whether there was an effective disclaimer of the implied warranties of merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose.
The trial court found that the written agreement entered into by the parties and designated as a "lease agreement" was in actuality a contract for the sale of goods. This finding is not disputed by the parties. The implied warranties of merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose would therefore arise out of this contract "unless excluded or modified" by the contract. OCGA §§ 11-2-314; 11-2-315. The method by which a merchant may effectively exclude or modify these implied warranties is set forth in OCGA § 11-2-316. Following a careful review of the contract at issue, we find that the contract contains a clear, unambiguous and effective disclaimer of the implied warranties of merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose pursuant to OCGA § 11-2-316(2).
2. Appellants also contend that a question of fact remains as to whether, at the time of default, some of the equipment was in the possession of appellee or its agent, thereby entitling appellants to a reduction in the amount owed pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
The evidence of record, construed most favorably for appellants, shows that a certain piece of equipment that had been delivered to appellant Lakeside pursuant to the agreement had malfunctioned. The equipment was returned directly to the president of Coastal States for repair, and in turn, appellant Lakeside received a "loaner" for use while the original equipment was being repaired. Appellants still had possession of the "loaner" equipment, and not the original equipment at the time of default. The "loaner" was of lesser value than the original equipment.
Coastal States, the purported agent whose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Blackston v. State, 68453
-
Chakales v. Hertz Corp.
...as statements of fact only when made by one of the purported parties to the relationship. Entertainment Developers, Inc. v. Relco, Inc., 172 Ga.App. 176, 177, 322 S.E.2d 304, 305 (1984); Salters v. Pugmire Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 124 Ga.App. 414, 415, 184 S.E.2d 56 (1971). Because the existe......
-
Ole Mexican Foods, Inc. v. Hanson Staple Co.
...sale of goods. See McQueen v. Minolta Business Solutions, 275 Ga.App. 297, 300(2), 620 S.E.2d 391 (2005); Entertainment Developers v. Relco, 172 Ga.App. 176(1), 322 S.E.2d 304 (1984). "If a contract involves only the sale of goods, the UCC applies. [Cit.]" Heart of Texas Dodge v. Star Coach......
-
Dougherty County Farm Bureau v. Hinman, 74447
...(1981). The trial court erred in denying defendant farm bureau's motion for summary judgment. Accord Entertainment Developers v. Relco, Inc., 172 Ga.App. 176(2), 322 S.E.2d 304 (1984); Shivers v. Barton & Ludwig, 164 Ga.App. 490, 491, 296 S.E.2d 749 2. In light of our holding in Division 1,......