Forster v. Levy

124 S.E. 99, 32 Ga. App. 580, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 552
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedAugust 13, 1924
Docket14892
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 124 S.E. 99 (Forster v. Levy) 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
Forster v. Levy, 124 S.E. 99, 32 Ga. App. 580, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 552 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Where a seller of merchandise delivered to the purchaser had had his attention called by the purchaser to the fact that the shipment contained a number of articles which the purchaser had not contracted for, and had requested the purchaser not to return the articles but to give the seller detailed information respecting them, and stated that he would promptly advise the purchaser what to do with the articles, and where the seller afterwards stated to the purchaser that payment for the goods not ordered would not be expected of the purchaser, and where the purchaser afterwards tendered to' the seller a remittance, accompanied with a statement to the seller that the goods which the purchaser had not ordered were in the purchaser’s possession and were being held by him awaiting the seller’s shipping instructions, although the purchaser had in the meantime intended to resell and thereby accept the merchandise not ordered, which intention was communicated to the seller, but had never in fact been put into effect, no inference arises that the merchandise not ordered had been accepted by the purchaser.

2. A mere intention on the part of a person to purchase goods which he had not contracted for, but which a prospective seller had placed in his possession for the purpose of acceptance, is not alone, in the absence of any overt act of acceptance, sufficient to authorize the inference of an acceptance.

3. In a suit by the seller against the purchaser, to recover for the articles not contracted for, where the undisputed evidence established the above state of facts, a finding in behalf of the plaintiff was without evidence to support it.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., eonour.

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

Related

Sassoon v. State
225 S.E.2d 732 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Lee v. Stokes
218 S.E.2d 654 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 S.E. 99, 32 Ga. App. 580, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forster-v-levy-gactapp-1924.