Bridges v. Avery & Sons Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bridges v. Avery & Sons Company

70 S.E.2d 550, 86 Ga. App. 9, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 857

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1952

Docket33924

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 70 S.E.2d 550 (Bridges v. Avery & Sons Company) 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

Bridges v. Avery & Sons Company, 70 S.E.2d 550, 86 Ga. App. 9, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 857 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Worrill, J.

1. “Where parties have reduced to writing what appears to be a complete and certain agreement, it will, in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, be conclusively presumed that the writing contains the entire contract, and parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous representations or statements is inadmissible to add to, take from, or vary the written instrument.” Bullard v. Brewer, 118 Ga. 918 (45 S. E. 711). Consequently, in the instant suit against the purchaser on a note and conditional-sale contract for a tractor and other equipment, the purchaser may not set up an alleged contemporaneous parol agreement by the seller to substitute for an obsolete power lift attached to the tractor *10 another power lift which would be more satisfactory. Sumner v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 53 Ga. App. 630 (186 S. E. 747).

Decided April 11, 1952. Briggs Carson Jr., Robert R. Forrester, for plaintiff in error. Farkas, Landau & Davis, contra.

(a) In the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, the statement in the contract, that “No warranties, express or implied, have been made by the dealer unless endorsed hereon in writing,” must be taken as a waiver of all defects in the property sold, latent or patent, and as equivalent to a waiver of any and all warranties, express or implied, including any warranty that the power lift was not reasonably suited to the use for which it was bought and sold. Butts v. Groover, 66 Ga. App. 20 (3) (16 S. E. 2d, 894). The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the answer.

2. Parties may amend their pleadings at any stage of the cause, but after an order sustaining a general demurrer to an answer has been signed, with no additional time allowed to amend, it is not error for the court to disallow an amendment to the answer.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C. J., and Felton, J., concur.

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

Worrill, J.

1. “Where parties have reduced to writing what appears to be a complete and certain agreement, it will, in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, be conclusively presumed that the writing contains the entire contract, and parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous representations or statements is inadmissible to add to, take from, or vary the written instrument.” Bullard v. Brewer, 118 Ga. 918 (45 S. E. 711). Consequently, in the instant suit against the purchaser on a note and conditional-sale contract for a tractor and other equipment, the purchaser may not set up an alleged contemporaneous parol agreement by the seller to substitute for an obsolete power lift attached to the tractor *10 another power lift which would be more satisfactory. Sumner v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 53 Ga. App. 630 (186 S. E. 747).

Decided April 11, 1952. Briggs Carson Jr., Robert R. Forrester, for plaintiff in error. Farkas, Landau & Davis, contra.

(a) In the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, the statement in the contract, that “No warranties, express or implied, have been made by the dealer unless endorsed hereon in writing,” must be taken as a waiver of all defects in the property sold, latent or patent, and as equivalent to a waiver of any and all warranties, express or implied, including any warranty that the power lift was not reasonably suited to the use for which it was bought and sold. Butts v. Groover, 66 Ga. App. 20 (3) (16 S. E. 2d, 894). The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the answer.

2. Parties may amend their pleadings at any stage of the cause, but after an order sustaining a general demurrer to an answer has been signed, with no additional time allowed to amend, it is not error for the court to disallow an amendment to the answer.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C. J., and Felton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E.2d 550, 86 Ga. App. 9, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridges-v-avery-sons-company-gactapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack