From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Key v. Haitchi

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 18, 1973
201 S.E.2d 832 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)

Opinion

48356.

SUBMITTED JULY 2, 1973.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 18, 1973. REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 12, 1973.

Money had and received. Cobb State Court. Before Judge Robinson.

McDonald, Dupree, Rodriguez Moore, John H. Moore, Hylton B. Dupree, for appellant.

Ingram, Flournoy, Downey, Cleveland Still, R. Kelly Raulerson, for appellee.


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.


Summaries of

Key v. Haitchi

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 18, 1973
201 S.E.2d 832 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)
Case details for

Key v. Haitchi

Case Details

Full title:KEY v. HAITCHI

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Sep 18, 1973

Citations

201 S.E.2d 832 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)
201 S.E.2d 832

Citing Cases

Harris v. Baker

Under these circumstances where essential terms are not included, the May 24 document and the blueprints…