Groover Engineering Co. v. Capital Associates, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Groover Engineering Co. v. Capital Associates, Inc.

313 S.E.2d 498, 169 Ga. App. 480, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1599

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 6, 1984

Docket67386

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 313 S.E.2d 498 (Groover Engineering Co. v. Capital Associates, 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

Groover Engineering Co. v. Capital Associates, Inc., 313 S.E.2d 498, 169 Ga. App. 480, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1599 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinions

Banke, Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a summary judgment for the plaintiff in a suit to recover damages and attorney fees allegedly owed pursuant to a lease agreement pertaining to certain office equipment. At issue is whether the defendant’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was sufficient to create a material issue of fact as to the validity of the claim. The affidavit contains averments to the effect that the defendant is not indebted to the plaintiff in any amount, that the equipment was not as warranted and was incapable of performing for the purposes intended, and that the plaintiff had failed to comply with a contractual obligation to maintain the equipment. Held:

The averment that the defendant is not indebted to the plaintiff is merely a legal conclusion. As for the remaining averments, they are [481]*481in direct conflict with the language of the lease, which stipulates that the equipment was selected by the defendant and that no express or implied warranties were made by the plaintiff. The lease further provides that “[l]ease payments will be due despite dissatisfaction with equipment for any reason” and that “[i]f the equipment is not properly installed, does not operate as represented or warranted by the seller or is unsatisfactory for any reason, lessee shall make any claim on account thereof against the seller and shall nevertheless pay lessor all rent payable under this lease.” In view of these provisions, the trial court did not err in concluding that the averments contained in the defendant’s affidavit were insufficient to preclude the grant of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. See generally OCGA § 9-11-56 (Code Ann. § 81A-156).

Decided January 6, 1984. Martin L. Fierman, for appellant. C. Frederick MacDowell, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., concurs. Carley, J., concurs specially.

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

Banke, Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a summary judgment for the plaintiff in a suit to recover damages and attorney fees allegedly owed pursuant to a lease agreement pertaining to certain office equipment. At issue is whether the defendant’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was sufficient to create a material issue of fact as to the validity of the claim. The affidavit contains averments to the effect that the defendant is not indebted to the plaintiff in any amount, that the equipment was not as warranted and was incapable of performing for the purposes intended, and that the plaintiff had failed to comply with a contractual obligation to maintain the equipment. Held:

The averment that the defendant is not indebted to the plaintiff is merely a legal conclusion. As for the remaining averments, they are [481]*481in direct conflict with the language of the lease, which stipulates that the equipment was selected by the defendant and that no express or implied warranties were made by the plaintiff. The lease further provides that “[l]ease payments will be due despite dissatisfaction with equipment for any reason” and that “[i]f the equipment is not properly installed, does not operate as represented or warranted by the seller or is unsatisfactory for any reason, lessee shall make any claim on account thereof against the seller and shall nevertheless pay lessor all rent payable under this lease.” In view of these provisions, the trial court did not err in concluding that the averments contained in the defendant’s affidavit were insufficient to preclude the grant of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. See generally OCGA § 9-11-56 (Code Ann. § 81A-156).

Decided January 6, 1984. Martin L. Fierman, for appellant. C. Frederick MacDowell, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., concurs. Carley, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 S.E.2d 498, 169 Ga. App. 480, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groover-engineering-co-v-capital-associates-inc-gactapp-1984.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack