Gettys v. MacK Trucks, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gettys v. MacK Trucks, Inc.

131 S.E.2d 205, 107 Ga. App. 694, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 958

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1963

Docket39869

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 131 S.E.2d 205 (Gettys v. MacK Trucks, Inc.) 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

Gettys v. MacK Trucks, Inc., 131 S.E.2d 205, 107 Ga. App. 694, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 958 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, Judge.

1. A petition seeking recovery of commissions under a contract of employment, which sets out an enforceable contract between the parties and alleges that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff for a stated sum due thereunder which it fails and refuses to pay although demand has been made, is not subject to a motion to dismiss on the sole ground that no cause is set forth. Keith v. Darby, 104 Ga. App. 624 (2) (122 SE2d 463).

2. A provision of such contract reciting: “The decisions of the president or vice-president, sales or general sales manager of the corporation shall be accepted as conclusive and final in connection with any dispute whatsoever which may arise in connection with this agreement” cannot be given any legal effect. “[A] general agreement to arbitrate all questions which may arise in the execution of a contract, both as to liability and loss, should be treated as against public policy and void, as an attempt to oust the courts of jurisdiction.” State Hwy. Dept. v. MacDougald Const. Co., 189 Ga. 490, 504 (6 SE2d 570). See also Parsons v. Ambos, 121 Ga. 98 (1) (48 SE 696). Since such a provision is void as against public policy it does not render the contract unenforceable in the courts.

The trial court erred in dismissing the petition on motion.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

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

Russell, Judge.

1. A petition seeking recovery of commissions under a contract of employment, which sets out an enforceable contract between the parties and alleges that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff for a stated sum due thereunder which it fails and refuses to pay although demand has been made, is not subject to a motion to dismiss on the sole ground that no cause is set forth. Keith v. Darby, 104 Ga. App. 624 (2) (122 SE2d 463).

2. A provision of such contract reciting: “The decisions of the president or vice-president, sales or general sales manager of the corporation shall be accepted as conclusive and final in connection with any dispute whatsoever which may arise in connection with this agreement” cannot be given any legal effect. “[A] general agreement to arbitrate all questions which may arise in the execution of a contract, both as to liability and loss, should be treated as against public policy and void, as an attempt to oust the courts of jurisdiction.” State Hwy. Dept. v. MacDougald Const. Co., 189 Ga. 490, 504 (6 SE2d 570). See also Parsons v. Ambos, 121 Ga. 98 (1) (48 SE 696). Since such a provision is void as against public policy it does not render the contract unenforceable in the courts.

The trial court erred in dismissing the petition on motion.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.E.2d 205, 107 Ga. App. 694, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gettys-v-mack-trucks-inc-gactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack