Hall v. Fruehauf Corp.
| Decision Date | 16 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 71598,71598 |
| Citation | 179 Ga.App. 362,346 S.E.2d 582 |
| Parties | , 2 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 435 HALL v. FRUEHAUF CORPORATION. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Bruce Berger, Atlanta, for appellant.
James H. Bratton, Jr., John G. Despriet, Atlanta, for appellee.
Fruehauf Corporation repaired Hall's trailer on August 3, 1982, in Apopka, Florida. In October it broke down in Dallas, Texas, and was hauled to Atlanta, where it was repaired by Fruehauf at no expense to Hall. The repairs took six weeks to complete. When the truck was taken for repairs in Florida, Hall signed a work order which stated that the order was subject to the terms and conditions on the back. The back of the work order contains a warranty of parts and/or repairs for ninety days and states that defects in materials or workmanship will be replaced or repaired within that period. The warranty further provides that it is in lieu of all other warranties, that repair is the sole remedy for work done under it, that Fruehauf is not liable for incidental or consequential damages due to loss of use, and that if repairs are performed on a no-charge basis, the customer's acceptance thereof is in full settlement of all claims.
Two years later, Hall filed suit against Fruehauf seeking an unstated amount in unspecified "damages" which he claims resulted from the negligent repair of his trailer. Answers to interrogatories revealed that he was seeking six weeks of lost wages. Hall appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Fruehauf, contending that the work order violated the public policy of Georgia and was unconscionable. Held:
From appellant's enumerations of errors it appears he is not contending that there is a material issue of fact requiring jury resolution. Rather, he claims that the court erred in ruling on an issue of law. See OCGA § 11-2-302, unconscionable contract or clause.
R.L. Kimsey Cotton Co. v. Ferguson, 233 Ga. 962, 966, 214 S.E.2d 360 (1975). It is well established " " Cash v. Street & Trail, Inc., 136 Ga.App. 462, 221 S.E.2d 640 (1975). " ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.
...as no sane man not acting under a delusion would make and that no honest man would take advantage of." Hall v. Fruehauf Corp., 179 Ga.App. 362, 346 S.E.2d 582, 583 (1986). None of the provisions challenged by the plaintiffs offends this Under the DRP, some claims, many of which would typica......
-
Abdulla v. Klosinski
...public policy in Georgia void it. To the contrary, a limitation of remedies is not considered unconscionable. Hall v. Fruehauf Corp., 179 Ga.App. 362, 362, 346 S.E.2d 582 (1986). Indeed, waiver-of-defenses clauses similar to that present in this case have been repeatedly enforced in Georgia......
-
Dale v. Comcast Corp.
...one that "no sane man not acting under a delusion would make and that no honest man would take advantage of." Hall v. Fruehauf Corp., 179 Ga.App. 362, 346 S.E.2d 582, 583 (1986). Plaintiffs contend that the arbitration agreement is procedurally unconscionable because: (1) subscribers had no......
-
Summerville v. Innovative Images, LLC
...the written contract defines the full extent of their rights and duties.(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hall v. Fruehauf Corp. , 179 Ga. App. 362, 362, 346 S.E.2d 582 (1986). As to arbitration clauses, "Georgia has ... enacted the [GAC], evidencing the legislature's conclusion that arb......