TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Carter v. Greenville Service Co.

CARTER v. GREENVILLE SERVICE COMPANY

Carter v. Greenville Serv. Co., 111 Ga. App. 651 (1965)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 10, 1965
Docket
No. 41266
Judges
Hall
Citations
111 Ga. App. 651
Cited by 10

Opinion of the Court — Hall

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hall, Judge.

The plaintiff sued the defendant on an account and the defendant filed an answer and counterclaim. The *652 plaintiff filed, a general demurrer and motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaim. After a hearing the trial court dismissed the petition at the plaintiff’s request and dismissed the counterclaim, in effect sustaining the plaintiff’s general demurrer. The defendant assigns error on the judgment dismissing his counterclaim. Held:

The counterclaim alleged that the defendant was a dealer of the plaintiff’s products pursuant to a “Magnavox Franchise Agreement” which provided that it should be effective until terminated by either party on notice to the other. Without giving the defendant (hereinafter called dealer) notice to terminate the agreement the plaintiff (hereinafter called Magnavox) failed to deliver merchandise ordered by the dealer pursuant to the agreement which the dealer had sold to customers, and as a result the dealer was unable to fill his customers’ orders and lost profits of $1,800 that he would have earned on the sales.

Magnavox contends that the dealer’s cross action must fall because it seeks to recover only loss of profits which were not shown to be within the contemplation of the parties to the alleged agreement. The agreement itself contemplated that goods bought by the dealer would be resold. This “is a sufficient reason for foreseeing that the buyer will make a profit at least equal to the difference between the contract price and the prevailing market prices at the time and place of delivery.” 5 Corbin on Contracts 100, § 1015; Williston on Contracts 3783, § 1347. Cf. Bush v. Addison, 40 Ga. App. 799 ( 151 SE 526 ). A party who has been injured by a breach of contract can recover profits that would have resulted from performance, when their amount and the fact that they have been prevented by the breach of the defendant can be proved with reasonable certainty. Taylor Mfg. Co. v. Hatcher Mfg. Co., 39 F 440 (S.D. Ga. 1889); Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Newman, 88 Ga. App. 252, 254 ( 76 SE2d 536 ); 5 Corbin on Contracts 135, § 1022.

The trial court erred in dismissing the cross action.

The argument that the counterclaim should have been dismissed because “the designation of the party plaintiff as ‘The Greenville Service Company, a Division of the Magnavox Company of Tennessee, a Tennessee Corporation,’ does not constitute a legal entity before the court,” is without merit. *653 Hunnicutt v. Reed, 149 Ga. 803 ( 102 SE 421 ); Smith v. Hartrampf, 105 Ga. App. 40, 42 ( 123 SE2d 417 ).

Argued April 7, 1965 Decided May 10, 1965. Roland Neeson, Elijah A. Brown, for plaintiff in error. ' Lipshutz, Macey, Zusmann & Sikes, Richard A. Katz, Robert ■ A. Eisner, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Bell, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1967: 11971: 21974: 11975: 11979: 11980: 11981: 21990: 119672026peak 1971 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. International Computer Group, Inc. v. Data General Corp.283 S.E.2d 12 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
  2. Annis v. Tomberlin & Shelnutt Associates, Inc.392 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)
  3. Comtrol, Inc. v. H-K Corp.214 S.E.2d 588 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)
  4. Graham Brothers' Construction Co. v. C. W. Matthews Contracting Co.284 S.E.2d 282 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
  5. Kingston Pencil Corp. v. Jordan154 S.E.2d 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)
  6. Crosswell v. Arten Construction Co.262 S.E.2d 522 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)

Most recent

  1. Annis v. Tomberlin & Shelnutt Associates, Inc.392 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)
  2. Graham Brothers' Construction Co. v. C. W. Matthews Contracting Co.284 S.E.2d 282 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
  3. International Computer Group, Inc. v. Data General Corp.283 S.E.2d 12 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
  4. Ellis v. MAJOR GAS & OIL COMPANY, INC.267 S.E.2d 485 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
  5. Crosswell v. Arten Construction Co.262 S.E.2d 522 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
  6. Comtrol, Inc. v. H-K Corp.214 S.E.2d 588 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Newman, 76 S.E.2d 536 (Ga. Ct. App. 1953) 36
Bush v. Addison, 151 S.E. 526 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930) 9
Hunnicutt v. Reed, 102 S.E. 421 (Ga. 1920) 7
Smith v. Hartrampf, 123 S.E.2d 417 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list