Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

KEY v. HAITCHI.

QUILLIAN, Judge.

The appellee brought a claim to recover certain money paid under an agreement for the purchase of a house and lot. The contract stated that the appellee (purchaser) agreed to buy a "house to be built on Lot 9 Lambert Drive Dunmovin S/D Plan No. 603 W. D. Farmer." The contract further provided that it constituted the sole and entire agreement between the parties. Upon the trial of the case the trial judge directed a verdict for the appellee. Held:

The contract did not contain any plans or specifications concerning the proposed construction and was therefore lacking in this necessary element to bind the parties; hence it was not enforceable under that which was held in Williams v. Bell, 126 Ga. App. 432 ( 190 S.E.2d 818) and Thomas v. Harris, 127 Ga. App. 361, 362 ( 193 S.E.2d 260).

The appellant contends that the reference to "Plan No. 603 W. D. Farmer" was sufficient to provide a key by which the plans could be identified. The plans were not attached to the contract nor was it stated where such plans might be located.

The direction of a verdict for the appellee was correct.

Judgment affirmed. Bell, C. J., and Deen, J., concur.

SUBMITTED JULY 2, 1973 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 18, 1973 — REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 12, 1973 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KEY v. HAITCHI
(Sep 18, 1973)