Custom Radio Wholesalers, Inc. v. Hamilton/Avnet Electronics

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Custom Radio Wholesalers, Inc. v. Hamilton/Avnet Electronics

248 S.E.2d 187, 147 Ga. App. 110, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2797

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 6, 1978

Docket56140

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 S.E.2d 187 (Custom Radio Wholesalers, Inc. v. Hamilton/Avnet Electronics) 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

Custom Radio Wholesalers, Inc. v. Hamilton/Avnet Electronics, 248 S.E.2d 187, 147 Ga. App. 110, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2797 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Webb, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff creditor in a suit on open account, defendant contending in its appeal here that the Statute of Frauds’ requirement of a writing was not met and that the purchase of the disputed items by its purported agent was unauthorized.

We hold that the Statute of Frauds question is eliminated pursuant to UCC § 109A-2 — 201 (3)(b) by defendant’s acknowledgments that the individual did, in fact, order the goods, the only question of substance being whether he had apparent authority to bind defendant contractually for the purchase price. The trial court, sitting without a jury, concluded that he did; and since we are unable to demonstrate that her finding was "wholly unsupported or clearly erroneous” (Spivey v. Mayson, 124 Ga. App. 775, 777 (186 SE2d 154) (1971)), the judgment will not be disturbed. Accord, Pinkerton & Laws Co. v. Atlantis Realty Co., 128 Ga. App. 662, 664 (1) (197 SE2d 749) (1973).

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and McMurray, J., concur.

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

Webb, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff creditor in a suit on open account, defendant contending in its appeal here that the Statute of Frauds’ requirement of a writing was not met and that the purchase of the disputed items by its purported agent was unauthorized.

We hold that the Statute of Frauds question is eliminated pursuant to UCC § 109A-2 — 201 (3)(b) by defendant’s acknowledgments that the individual did, in fact, order the goods, the only question of substance being whether he had apparent authority to bind defendant contractually for the purchase price. The trial court, sitting without a jury, concluded that he did; and since we are unable to demonstrate that her finding was "wholly unsupported or clearly erroneous” (Spivey v. Mayson, 124 Ga. App. 775, 777 (186 SE2d 154) (1971)), the judgment will not be disturbed. Accord, Pinkerton & Laws Co. v. Atlantis Realty Co., 128 Ga. App. 662, 664 (1) (197 SE2d 749) (1973).

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and McMurray, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.E.2d 187, 147 Ga. App. 110, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/custom-radio-wholesalers-inc-v-hamiltonavnet-electronics-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack