Bob Wilson Ford, Inc. v. Folds

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bob Wilson Ford, Inc. v. Folds

325 S.E.2d 601, 173 Ga. App. 87, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2732

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 19, 1984

Docket68645

StatusPublished

This text of 325 S.E.2d 601 (Bob Wilson Ford, Inc. v. Folds) 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.

Bluebook

Bob Wilson Ford, Inc. v. Folds, 325 S.E.2d 601, 173 Ga. App. 87, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2732 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Benham, Judge.

Appellee sued appellant for a bonus allegedly due under an employment contract. In this appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for appellee, the sole enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict for appellant. Three grounds for the motion were raised in the trial court and on appeal, but we need address only one, since it is dispositive of this case. Appellant argues that appellee failed to produce evidence of damages sufficient to support any verdict against appellant. We agree.

The evidence of damages consisted of appellee’s calculations based on his estimates and opinions of the volume of business conducted by appellant which would be pertinent to" his contract and on estimates and hypothetical prices and costs from the testimony of other witnesses. “The question of damages cannot be left to speculation, conjecture and guesswork. [Cits.]” Development Corp. of Ga. v. Berndt, 131 Ga. App. 277, 278 (205 SE2d 868) (1974). The evidence offered in this case on the issue of damages was no more than speculation and guesswork, and a directed verdict for appellant was demanded. Id.

Judgment reversed.

Banke, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Benham, Judge.

Appellee sued appellant for a bonus allegedly due under an employment contract. In this appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for appellee, the sole enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict for appellant. Three grounds for the motion were raised in the trial court and on appeal, but we need address only one, since it is dispositive of this case. Appellant argues that appellee failed to produce evidence of damages sufficient to support any verdict against appellant. We agree.

The evidence of damages consisted of appellee’s calculations based on his estimates and opinions of the volume of business conducted by appellant which would be pertinent to" his contract and on estimates and hypothetical prices and costs from the testimony of other witnesses. “The question of damages cannot be left to speculation, conjecture and guesswork. [Cits.]” Development Corp. of Ga. v. Berndt, 131 Ga. App. 277, 278 (205 SE2d 868) (1974). The evidence offered in this case on the issue of damages was no more than speculation and guesswork, and a directed verdict for appellant was demanded. Id.

Judgment reversed.

Banke, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 S.E.2d 601, 173 Ga. App. 87, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bob-wilson-ford-inc-v-folds-gactapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack