John Bleakley Ford, Inc. v. Estes

• Decision Date: 24 November 1982
• Docket Number: 65189,Nos. 65188,s. 65188
• Citation: John Bleakley Ford, Inc. v. Estes, 164 Ga.App. 547, 298 S.E.2d 270 (Ga. App. 1982)
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: JOHN BLEAKLEY FORD, INC. v. ESTES. ESTES v. JOHN BLEAKLEY FORD, INC.

Page 270

298 S.E.2d 270

164 Ga.App. 547

JOHN BLEAKLEY FORD, INC. v.ESTES.

ESTES v.JOHN BLEAKLEY FORD, INC.

Nos. 65188, 65189.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Nov. 24, 1982.

James R. Dollar, Jr., Donald B. Howe, Jr., Timothy A. McCreary, Douglasville, for appellant.

Martha Mullins, G. Michael Hartley, Douglasville, for appellee.

DEEN, Presiding Judge.

For a number of years John Bleakley Ford, Inc. located its dealership on premises owned by Estes.Since 1972the parties have operated without a written lease.On November 9, 1978, Estes filed a dispossessory proceeding against appellant and on March 2, 1979, the parties filed a consent judgment which permitted appellant to remain in possession of the premises through September 30, 1979, unless the parties entered into a new agreement.A counterclaim by appellant was dismissed with prejudice.In March 1979, appellee entered into a written five year lease with a third party which ws to begin October 1, 1979, but the lease was apparently contingent upon the third party's obtaining an automobile dealership.On August 9, 1979, Estes brought suit against appellant to enjoin removal of equipment and for damages.Appellant now contends that it met with Estes and entered into an oral agreement to enter into a written lease after October 1, 1979.(Bleakley claims that this agreement was made contingent upon the third party's not obtaining a dealership and Estes' assurances that it would be unable to do so), and that in reliance upon this agreement it was induced to forego a valuable alternate location for its business.On September 26, 1979, Estes obtained a writ of possession which was set aside upon application of John Bleakley Ford on October 3, 1979.On October 9, 1979, appellant answered the complaint for an injunction and counterclaimed, seeking damages, injunctive relief and reinstatement of its earlier counterclaim.After a hearing on November 7, 1979, the court held that there were questions of fact for a jury and allowed appellant to remain in possession by paying its monthly rent into the registry of the court and posting a $15,000 bond conditioned upon proof of actual damages sustained by Estes.This appeal follows the grant of appellee's motion for summary judgment and the dismissal of the counterclaim.

1.In Case Number 65188, Bleakley Ford contends that Estes is estopped by his conduct to repudiate the oral agreement between the parties and therefore the court erred in granting summary judgment.

The record and briefs indicate that Estes does not deny meeting with appellant and that there were discussions between the two parties about entering into a new lease agreement.However, there was no agreement upon either the monthly rental or the term for the lease.Appellant does not contend that the agreement was finalized, only that the parties agreed to agree." 'Unless an agreement is reached as to all terms and conditions and nothing is left to future negotiations, a contract to enter into a contract in the future is of no effect [Cits.]'Malone Construction Co., Inc. v. Westbrook, 127 Ga.App....