Rollins v. Gault, 58790
Decision Date | 10 March 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 58790,58790 |
Parties | ROLLINS v. GAULT. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Joe W. Cook, Stone Mountain, for appellant.
William Boyd Lyons, Larry K. Janney, Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellee Gault, plaintiff in the lower court, entered into a sales contract to purchase a house from appellant Rollins. This contract had certain contingencies which are at issue in this case, as follows: The contract also contained a special stipulation, as follows:
The appellant-seller, Rollins, through his agent gave oral notice on April 2, 1978 to the appellee-purchaser, Gault, through appellee's agent that appellant had another contract and appellee could waive the contingency in paragraph 19 of the contract if he wished. Testimony was offered that this contingency was waived within the 72-hour period. Also, on April 2, according to the date on the contract, appellant executed a contract for the sale of this same house to a third party without mention of the so-called 72-hour provision in his previous contract. Plaintiff/appellee Gault sued for damages for breach of the contract. The judge heard the case without a jury and found for the plaintiff/appellee Gault and awarded damages. In the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the judge found that the defendant/appellant Rollins, by signing the second contract, deprived plaintiff of his 72-hour "right of first refusal."
The above quoted stipulation 19 was ambiguous but all parties and the judge interpreted it as allowing the appellee-purchaser Gault 72 hours in which to advise seller that he (Gault) would remove this contingency if another sales contract was tendered to appellant-seller on this property. The contract would then be unequivocal in this regard. Evidence may be received from the parties to aid in the interpretation of an ambiguous provision (Code Ann. § 20-704; Swanson v. Mobley, 33 Ga.App. 791, 127 S.E. 806 (1925)) and the parties understanding of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Club Associates, In re
...of first refusal right were void regarding the rights and interests of the holder of the preemptive right.); Rollins v. Gault, 153 Ga.App. 781, 266 S.E.2d 560 (Ct.App.1980) (Party was deprived of its first refusal right when a contract for sale of a house was executed with a third party.); ......
-
Ih Riverdale v. Mcchesney Capital Partners
...contract can become definite and enforceable through the subsequent acts, words, and conduct of the parties); Rollins v. Gault, 153 Ga.App. 781, 782, 266 S.E.2d 560 (1980) (evidence may be received to aid in the interpretation of an ambiguous right of first refusal).1 (b) The second issue i......
-
TMS Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Mitchell
...Ga.App. 253, 254(2), 390 S.E.2d 402. See also Ott v. Vineville Market, Ltd., 203 Ga.App. 80(1), 416 S.E.2d 362 and Rollins v. Gault, 153 Ga.App. 781, 782, 266 S.E.2d 560. The superior court adopted the view advocated by defendant that plaintiff by placing itself in a position where it could......
- Tab Sales, Inc. v. D & D Distributors, Inc.