Jones v. Dupree

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jones v. Dupree

93 S.E.2d 191, 93 Ga. App. 830, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 876

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 12, 1956

Docket36087

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 93 S.E.2d 191 (Jones v. Dupree) 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

Jones v. Dupree, 93 S.E.2d 191, 93 Ga. App. 830, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 876 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinions

Quillian, J.

1. Though the evidence of the losing party upon the material issues of the case seems to be of greater weight than that of his adversary, if there is some evidence to support the verdict it will not be disturbed.

2. Where one is employed to obtain a sponsor for a television program and produces one ready, able and willing, and who actually agrees to sponsor the program, his performance of the contract is complete. Hardin v. Stansel, 13 Ga. App. 22 (78 S. E. 681); Gilmer v. Carnes, 81 Ga. App. 555, 558 (59 S. E. 2d 292).

3. There is no ambiguity in the provision of a contract that one employed on a contingent basis to procure a particular result is to be paid, if successful in accomplishing the purpose of his employment, a specified percent of the gross amount received by his employer from the transaction.

4. The question whether a contract of employment was unenforceable as an executory agreement because indefinite became moot when the person employed had fully performed the services he was engaged to render. .

5. In a case in which the issue was whether what was said by the parties during certain conversations and negotiations amounted to a valid contract committing one party to render defined services and obligating the other party to pay him stipulated fees for such services, it would be helpful for the court to instruct the jury as to what constitutes a valid contract. But where, as in the instant case, the judge charged the jury so as to submit the issues in a practical and understandable manner, so that the jury was informed of the very questions to be decided by them, the failure to -technically define the word “contract” and each of its elements did not constitute error.

6. The trial judge did not err in denying the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., Townsend, Carlisle and Nichols, JJ., concur. Felton, C. J. dissents.

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

Quillian, J.

1. Though the evidence of the losing party upon the material issues of the case seems to be of greater weight than that of his adversary, if there is some evidence to support the verdict it will not be disturbed.

2. Where one is employed to obtain a sponsor for a television program and produces one ready, able and willing, and who actually agrees to sponsor the program, his performance of the contract is complete. Hardin v. Stansel, 13 Ga. App. 22 (78 S. E. 681); Gilmer v. Carnes, 81 Ga. App. 555, 558 (59 S. E. 2d 292).

3. There is no ambiguity in the provision of a contract that one employed on a contingent basis to procure a particular result is to be paid, if successful in accomplishing the purpose of his employment, a specified percent of the gross amount received by his employer from the transaction.

4. The question whether a contract of employment was unenforceable as an executory agreement because indefinite became moot when the person employed had fully performed the services he was engaged to render. .

5. In a case in which the issue was whether what was said by the parties during certain conversations and negotiations amounted to a valid contract committing one party to render defined services and obligating the other party to pay him stipulated fees for such services, it would be helpful for the court to instruct the jury as to what constitutes a valid contract. But where, as in the instant case, the judge charged the jury so as to submit the issues in a practical and understandable manner, so that the jury was informed of the very questions to be decided by them, the failure to -technically define the word “contract” and each of its elements did not constitute error.

6. The trial judge did not err in denying the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., Townsend, Carlisle and Nichols, JJ., concur. Felton, C. J. dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E.2d 191, 93 Ga. App. 830, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-dupree-gactapp-1956.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack