Parr v. Jones
| Decision Date | 21 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 64450,64450 |
| Citation | 295 S.E.2d 570,163 Ga.App. 597 |
| Parties | PARR v. JONES. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
James W. Studdard, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Carolyn T. Thurston, Thomas J. Wingfield, III, Atlanta, for appellee.
On July 18, 1980, Wallace L. Jones purchased a 1971 Cadillac from Gary R. Parr, d/b/a Decatur Auto Sales. The purchase was an installment sale in which a security agreement was executed, the purchaser paying down cash of $431.80 with installments to be made thereafter in which title was to remain with the seller until paid in full. The agreement specifically stated that the vehicle was sold without any warranty, but even though this language was printed on the form, nevertheless in writing the seller agreed as follows: "will guarantee transmission for 30 days from 7/18/80".
Jones contends that thereafter (on the date of sale within three miles of the place of business) he discovered the automobile was defective in that the transmission malfunctioned. He notified Parr who instructed him to take the automobile to a certain place for repairs which Jones did. After being informed that it had been repaired it went bad again. Jones made one other weekly payment of $50 for a total of $481.80. He returned the automobile to Parr on or about July 31, 1980, and it remained with Parr until Parr sold it again, refusing to return to Jones the amount he had paid even though he had resold the automobile to another person for a profit.
Jones then sued Parr for the breach and repudiation of the contract, contending he had fully performed his obligations under the contract and defendant had failed and refused to fulfill his duties under the contract. He sought the sums he had paid in the amount of $481.80, reasonable attorney fees and expenses of litigation.
The defendant answered, denying the claim but admitting jurisdiction, the sale of the automobile by written agreement and the contract which was attached to the petition and the express warranty with reference to the transmission for a period of 30 days. He also admitted that plaintiff had demanded return of his down payment of $431.80 and the additional $50 payment but that the warranty had not been breached and also that he had thereafter sold the automobile for a profit.
At a bench trial the court stated that from the findings of fact the plaintiff was possibly entitled to a judgment on the theory of express warranty on the transmission, it having failed after being driven about three miles, and same not being corrected, plaintiff would be entitled to his money back. Further, as the defendant then sold the automobile for the same price he had before he would have to account to the plaintiff for the difference and further defendant would not be entitled to unjust enrichment, that is, to keep the funds paid by the plaintiff. The court's findings of fact were then rendered with reference to the contract, the only facts appearing to be controverted being the question of whether the transmission was defective and remained uncured, if in fact there was a faulty transmission. The conclusions of law by the court were that defendant having breached the sales contract by failing to repair the transmission within the 30 day period plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the breach electing to rescind the contract and he was entitled to the sums paid the defendant. The trial court also concluded that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mathenia v. Brumbelow
...an appellate court] cannot substitute its judgment for that exercised by the trial court in its findings of fact." Parr v. Jones , 163 Ga. App. 597, 598, 295 S.E.2d 570 (1982). See also Matthews , supra, 314 Ga. App. at 786 (1), 726 S.E.2d 95 (where "any evidence" supports the superior cour......
-
City of Atlanta v. Hadjisimos
...10 (1980)), we will exercise our duty to construe the testimony to uphold the judgment rather than destroy it. Parr v. Jones, 163 Ga.App. 597, 599, 295 S.E.2d 570 (1982). Therefore, we will consider Hadjisimos' testimony as having been offered on behalf of the corporate lessee. Thus, the tr......
-
Scarbrough v. Honea
...of the loan. "There being evidence to support the findings of the trial court, the judgment must be affirmed." Parr v. Jones, 163 Ga.App. 597, 598, 295 S.E.2d 570 (1982). 2. Appellant's final enumeration of error has not been supported in the brief by citation of authority or argument and, ......
-
Exxon Corp. v. Butler, 68494
...provision. "There being evidence to support the findings of the trial court, the judgment must be affirmed." Parr v. Jones, 163 Ga.App. 597, 598, 295 S.E.2d 570 (1982). Judgment McMURRAY, C.J., DEEN, BANKE and BIRDSONG, P.JJ., and CARLEY, SOGNIER and BEASLEY, JJ., concur. POPE, J., dissents......