Maher v. Associated Video, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 September 1983
• Docket Number: No. 66538,66538
• Citation: 307 S.E.2d 545,167 Ga.App. 763
• Parties: MAHER v. ASSOCIATED VIDEO, INC.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 545

307 S.E.2d 545

167 Ga.App. 763

MAHER v. ASSOCIATED VIDEO, INC.

No. 66538.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Sept. 7, 1983.

Gary W. Bross, Decatur, for appellant.

Harry L. Trauffer, Marietta, for appellee.

QUILLIAN, Presiding Judge.

The defendant appeals the judgment of the trial judge, sitting without a jury, finding for the plaintiff in the amount of $2,005.75. Held:

The defendant contends that this action was on an express contract and there was no evidence of a contract and that damages under the theory of quantum meruit could not be recovered.

The evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding that the parties did enter into a contract whereby the plaintiff was to provide video taping and services incident thereto to the defendant. The evidence also showed that the defendant requested and received additional services in this regard on two subsequent occasions. The record also reveals that the defendant was charged for certain cassettes he was furnished as a part of plaintiff's service to him.

"The rule is that the pleader may declare an express non-special contract, and recover upon proof of an implied promise." Jackson v. Buice, 132 Ga. 51, 54, 63 S.E. 823. Accord, Hightower v. Scarborough, 79 Ga.App. 342, 344, 53 S.E.2d 726; Gayle v. Greco, 150 Ga.App. 651, 258 S.E.2d 301. " 'An action may be brought and sustained on open account for goods sold or services rendered, although there may have been a special contract in writing governing the subject-matter of the suit, where it appears that the plaintiff has fully performed his part of the agreement and nothing remains to be done except for the other party to make payment.' " Haas v. Jaffe, 45 Ga.App. 11(2), 163 S.E. 226. Moreover, " '[o]rdinarily, when one renders services ... valuable to another, which the latter accepts, a promise is implied to pay the reasonable value thereof...' Code § 3-107. [Now OCGA § 9-2-7] Even if there is an express contract, if services not contemplated by the original agreement become necessary to achieve the contractual objective and are rendered and accepted, the law implies and enforces performance of a promise to pay for such extra services." Puritan Mills v. Pickering etc. Co., 152 Ga.App. 309, 310, 262 S.E.2d 586. Accord, Conway v. Housing Auth., 102 Ga.App. 333, 335, 116 S.E.2d 331; Kapplin v. Seiden, 109 Ga.App. 586, 588, 137 S.E.2d 55; Smith v. Sharpe, 113 Ga.App. 838, 149 S.E.2d 830; Gardner v. Tarpley, 120 Ga.App. 192, 169 S.E.2d 690.

The...