Camera Haus, Inc. v. Olympus Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Camera Haus, Inc. v. Olympus Corp.

333 S.E.2d 22, 175 Ga. App. 166, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2048

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 18, 1985

Docket70085

StatusPublished

This text of 333 S.E.2d 22 (Camera Haus, Inc. v. Olympus Corp.) 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

Camera Haus, Inc. v. Olympus Corp., 333 S.E.2d 22, 175 Ga. App. 166, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2048 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff Olympus Corporation filed this suit on an open account. Defendant Camera Haus, Inc. answered denying plaintiff’s claim.

Plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment and affidavits in support thereof. Defendant filed its affidavit in opposition. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant appeals. Held:

Plaintiff’s evidence shows that it provided the goods in question in accordance with defendant’s instructions, and billed defendant in the same manner as previous transactions. Defendant’s evidence shows that the items in question were purchased under an express agreement that the items could be returned for full credit if not purchased by defendant’s customer for whom they were specially ordered; that the customer did not purchase the items; that plaintiff refused to allow defendant to return the items; and that subsequently defendant was unable to sell the merchandise for its costs. The un[167]*167signed invoice sent to defendant was not a writing in confirmation of a contract under OCGA § 11-2-201 et seq. See Jackson v. Meadows, 153 Ga. App. 1 (1) (264 SE2d 503). The contract being entirely parol and the parties having presented conflicting evidence as to the terms of the contract, genuine issues of material fact remain for jury determination. Yalanzon v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 169 Ga. App. 961, 962 (1) (315 SE2d 677). See also OCGA § 9-11-56.

Decided June 18, 1985. Douglas E. Smith, for appellant. Bennet Grude, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Banke, C. J., and Benham, J., concur.

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

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff Olympus Corporation filed this suit on an open account. Defendant Camera Haus, Inc. answered denying plaintiff’s claim.

Plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment and affidavits in support thereof. Defendant filed its affidavit in opposition. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant appeals. Held:

Plaintiff’s evidence shows that it provided the goods in question in accordance with defendant’s instructions, and billed defendant in the same manner as previous transactions. Defendant’s evidence shows that the items in question were purchased under an express agreement that the items could be returned for full credit if not purchased by defendant’s customer for whom they were specially ordered; that the customer did not purchase the items; that plaintiff refused to allow defendant to return the items; and that subsequently defendant was unable to sell the merchandise for its costs. The un[167]*167signed invoice sent to defendant was not a writing in confirmation of a contract under OCGA § 11-2-201 et seq. See Jackson v. Meadows, 153 Ga. App. 1 (1) (264 SE2d 503). The contract being entirely parol and the parties having presented conflicting evidence as to the terms of the contract, genuine issues of material fact remain for jury determination. Yalanzon v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 169 Ga. App. 961, 962 (1) (315 SE2d 677). See also OCGA § 9-11-56.

Decided June 18, 1985. Douglas E. Smith, for appellant. Bennet Grude, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Banke, C. J., and Benham, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 S.E.2d 22, 175 Ga. App. 166, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camera-haus-inc-v-olympus-corp-gactapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack