Garrison v. Piatt

Decision Date20 January 1966
Docket NumberNo. 41747,No. 1,41747,1
Citation147 S.E.2d 374,113 Ga.App. 94
Parties, 3 UCC Rep.Serv. 296 John E. GARRISON v. Donald PIATT
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Candler, Cox, McClain & Andrews, E. Lewis Hansen, A. Orville, Bracery, III, Atlanta, for appellant.

Tarleton & Zion, William W. Barham, Marvin H. Zion, Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

PANNELL, Judge.

1. While, under the law as it stood prior to the adoption of the Commercial Code, a party sued upon a parol contract for the sale of goods within the statute of frauds (Code § 20-401(7)) could admit the contract and at the same time insist upon the benefit of the statute (Hollingshead v. McKenzie, 8 Ga. 457; Douglass v. Bunn, 110 Ga. 159, 165, 35 S.E. 339; Mendel v. L. F. Miller & Sons, 134 Ga. 610(1), 68 S.E. 430); yet, since the adoption of the Uniform, commercial Code (Ga.L.1962, p. 156 et seq.) such a contract, if otherwise valid, is enforceable 'if the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a contract for sale was made, * * *' as to the quantity of the goods admitted. Code § 109A-2-201(3) (b). Under the statute as it now stands, as to the sale of goods of the value of $500 or more, the party charged cannot admit the fact of the contract in the manner provided and at the same time claim the benefit of the statute of frauds. It is the intent of this change in the statute of frauds, that if, after the petition or cross action is filed, the person charged admits the contract in the case thus pending, the statute of frauds as a defense shall not be available to the party charged; but on the contrary the case thus made shall be determined on the merits without reference to the statute of frauds. This provision was designed to prevent the statute of frauds itself from becoming an aid to fraud, by prohibiting one claiming the benefit of the statute who admits in the case the oral contract sued upon. Since a contract, which is within the statute at the time of filing the petition or cross action, can become enforceable by admissions only in the case itself by the party charged, rather than admissions made outside the case prior to the filing of the petition or cross action,-it would, therefore, be contrary to the intention and purpose of the statutory change to permit the sustaining of a demurrer to a petition or cross action upon such a contract based on the ground that such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Lewis v. Hughes
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • October 29, 1975
    ...515, 517 (1972); Giant Peanut Co. v. Carolina Chemicals, Inc., 129 Ga.App. 718, 200 S.E.2d 918, 920 (1973); Garrison v. Piatt, 113 Ga.App. 94, 147 S.E.2d 374, 375-76 (1966); Quad County Grain, Inc. v. Poe, 202 N.W.2d 118, 120 (Iowa 1972); Providence Granite Co. Joseph Rugo, Inc., Mass., 291......
  • Dehahn v. Innes
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • April 22, 1976
    ...parol, while removing from the arsenal of an unscrupulous litigant an unrighteous defense against a just claim. See Garrison v. Piatt, 1966, 113 Ga.App. 94, 147 S.E. 2d 374. Since part of the consideration for the price in the instant oral agreement consisted of real estate, we must have in......
  • Boylan v. G. L. Morrow Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 3, 1984
    ...using the common law demurrer, sustaining the demurrer would effectively negate the exception of the statute, which is why the court in Garrison v. Piatt turned down sustaining a demurrer, deferring to a vitality for section 2-201(3)(b)." (Duesenberg, Statute of Frauds in its 300th Year: Th......
  • ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • July 7, 1994
    ...opportunity to get the defendant to admit "in his pleadings, testimony or otherwise" that a contract was made); Garrison v. Piatt, 113 Ga.App. 94, 147 S.E.2d 374, 375-76 (1966) ("[Section 8-319(d) ] was designed to prevent the statute of frauds itself from becoming an aid to fraud, by prohi......
  • 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