Hardy v. Gordon

Decision Date13 July 1978
Docket NumberNo. 55737,55737
PartiesHARDY et al. v. GORDON et al.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Moore & McLaughlin, James B. McLaughlin, Jr., McKenney & Thornton, Neal D. McKenney, Macon, for appellants.

Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier, Cubbedge Snow, Charles M. Stapleton, Macon, for appellees.

McMURRAY, Judge.

The plaintiffs (Hardy and Pettis) brought this action for damages for fraud and deceit against Don W. Gordon and Georgia Bank & Trust Company. The averments of plaintiffs' complaint are: Mr. Gordon was president of the defendant bank; that he was acting in his capacity as president and as agent of the defendant bank when he was asked for financial advice by plaintiff Hardy in connection with the proposed purchase of certain real property. Plaintiff Hardy furnished defendant Gordon with information relative to the income which the property in question could produce and sought defendant Gordon's advice as to the amount they should offer for the property. Defendant Gordon advised plaintiff Hardy he should not offer more than $120,000 for the property; that in advising plaintiffs not to offer more than $120,000 for the property in question defendant Gordon made deceitful and false representations in that he knew the property was worth more than $120,000. Plaintiffs relied upon defendant Gordon's advice and made an offer of $120,000. Defendant Gordon made an offer of $135,000 and was purchaser of the property. As a direct result of defendant Gordon's misrepresentations and breach of his fiduciary duty to plaintiffs, they have suffered damages in the amount of $25,000. Defendant Gordon had no knowledge about the property in question or that it was up for sale prior to their inquiry, and their consultation with Gordon who was acting in his capacity as president and agent of the bank, with which they maintained their business banking account, thus creating a fiduciary relationship which was breached by Gordon's actions.

Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted which were granted by the trial court, and plaintiffs appeal. Held :

The five elements of fraud and deceit in the State of Georgia are: (1) false representation made by defendant; (2) scienter; (3) intention to induce plaintiff to act or refrain from acting in reliance by the plaintiff; (4) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; (...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Williams v. Dresser Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • May 4, 1992
    ...183 Ga.App. 790, 793, 359 S.E.2d 920 (1987); Morrison v. Hayes, 176 Ga.App. 128, 130, 335 S.E.2d 596 (1985); Hardy v. Gordon, 146 Ga.App. 656, 657, 247 S.E.2d 166 (1978); Shaw v. Cook County Fed. Sav. & Loan, 139 Ga.App. 419, 420, 228 S.E.2d 326 (1976). See also, Grizzle v. Guarantee Ins. C......
  • Batanado v. Clark (In re Clark)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • September 6, 2018
    ...(d) justifiable reliance, and (e) damages. Grizzle v. Guarantee Ins. Co. , 602 F.Supp. 465, 467 (N.D. Ga. 1984) ; Hardy v. Gordon, 146 Ga. App. 656, 247 S.E.2d 166 (1978) ; Shaw v. Cook County Fed. Savings & Loan, 139 Ga. App. 419, 228 S.E.2d 326 (1976). Defendant bore the burden of proof o......
  • Little v. Fleet Finance
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 5, 1997
    ...false representation upon which she relied or that she was in any way injured by virtue of appellees' actions. See Hardy v. Gordon, 146 Ga.App. 656, 657, 247 S.E.2d 166 (1978). Under the facts as asserted in the complaint, there was a "confidential agreement" between Adams and Fleet, made p......
  • Holloway v. Dougherty County School System
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 8, 1981
    ...plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts that could be proven in support of the claim." Hardy v. Gordon, 146 Ga.App. 656, 657, 247 S.E.2d 166 (1978). The allegations in appellant's complaint that the actions and omissions of the individual appellees were "wilful a......
  • 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