American Writing Machine Co. v. Bobo
This text of 121 S.E. 246 (American Writing Machine Co. v. Bobo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
(After stating the foregoing facts). The court properly construed the contract,—the order blank as signed and returned,—as “one of rental.” Under the facts shown by the record Turner never bought the typewriter. Before a sale of personal property is complete, the statute provides, not only must there be “consent of the parties” and “identification of the thing sold,” but also an agreement as to the price to be paid. Civil Code (1910), § 4106. See Dudley v. Taylor, 22 Ga. App. 715, 716 (97 S. E. 91). Granting that the contract gave to. Turner an option to buy the typewriter, he never gave to the American Writing Machine Company any notice that he would exercise this option; and as the contract named no purchase price and none was ever agreed upon, there was no sale, and the title remained in the American Writing Machine Company. As there is no evidence to support the verdict, the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Under this ruling it is unnécessary to consider the other assignments of error.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
121 S.E. 246, 31 Ga. App. 540, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-writing-machine-co-v-bobo-gactapp-1924.