Good v. Tri-Cep, Inc., TRI-CE
| Decision Date | 05 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 38048,INC,TRI-CE,38048 |
| Citation | 285 S.E.2d 527,248 Ga. 684 |
| Parties | Albert GOOD v. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Sam G. Dickson, Decatur, for Albert Good.
J. Ed Segraves, Decatur, for Tri-Cep, Inc.
The parties signed a contract on May 31, 1979, for the sale of real property to appellant Good. Attached was a "Work Sheet" setting out details pertaining to the construction of a house to be erected on the property by appellee Tri-Cep, Inc. (Tri-Cep). The house was not finished by the closing date, and upon completion of the residence Tri-Cep refused to close. Good brought this action seeking specific performance, damages, and other relief.
The trial court granted Tri-Cep's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the documents entered into between the parties, as supplemented by the course of performance by the parties did not create a contract of sufficient specificity to render it capable of specific performance, and that there was no tender by Good to Tri-Cep.
1. We find that the contract sued upon is sufficiently definite and certain to sustain an action for specific performance.
It is manifestly impossible to spell out every detail in a construction contract. The contract of sale and the accompanying work sheet were supplied and completed by Tri-Cep. The work sheet specified a "House Plan," designated by a numerical code; other details were supplied, and an officer of Tri-Cep testified that it was their practice to fill in any omissions during the course of construction.
Tri-Cep argues that the contract expired upon the passing of the closing date. Good's checks were delivered to and negotiated by Tri-Cep after the original closing date, which raises an issue of fact as to whether the parties waived the time of performance. Perry Development Corp. v. Colonial Contracting Corp., 231 Ga. 666(4), 203 S.E.2d 475 (1974).
In addition, these checks, combined with notations made on the work sheet and initialed by an officer of Tri-Cep, are a sufficient writing with respect to minor modifications made in the design and construction of the house during the course of construction to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. See Code Ann. § 20-401.
The house has been completed and a decree of specific performance would require little or no supervision by the trial court. Thus, what is often a principal obstacle to specific performance of construction contracts is not present. See 164 A.L.R. 802, anno., p. 808 et seq.; 38...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClure v. Gower
...136 S.E.2d 740 (1964). There was adequate proof of tender, which was, in any event, either waived by McClure, Good v. Tri-Cep, Inc., 248 Ga. 684(2), 285 S.E.2d 527 (1982), or vitiated by its conditional nature. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. McFather, 255 Ga. 13, 334 S.E.2d 673 (1985). And,......
- Anderson v. State
-
Harrison v. Williams
...check payable to Williams and attempted to hand it to him directly, the payment would have been refused. See Good v. Tri-Cep, Inc., 248 Ga. 684, 685(2), 285 S.E.2d 527 (1982); Smith v. Standard Oil Co., 226 Ga. 339(2), 175 S.E.2d 14 (1970); Ray M. Wright, Inc. v. Stinchcomb, 259 Ga.App. 212......
-
Porter v. City of Atlanta, A-TO
...unnecessary where the person to whom the money is due indicates that tender would be refused. O.C.G.A. § 13-4-24; Good v. Tri-Cep, Inc., 248 Ga. 684, 285 S.E.2d 527 (1982). Moreover, the ordinance does not require formal tender. We conclude that the ordinance was violated when appellants in......