Pace Construction Corp. v. Houdaille-Duval-Wright Division

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pace Construction Corp. v. Houdaille-Duval-Wright Division

279 S.E.2d 764, 158 Ga. App. 33, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2058

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 16, 1981

Docket60365

StatusPublished

This text of 279 S.E.2d 764 (Pace Construction Corp. v. Houdaille-Duval-Wright Division) 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

Pace Construction Corp. v. Houdaille-Duval-Wright Division, 279 S.E.2d 764, 158 Ga. App. 33, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2058 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

This is a suit by a subcontractor against a contractor and the sureties on the latter’s performance bond. The defendants moved for a stay of the proceedings on the ground that the subcontract had a mandatory arbitration clause, and this appeal is from the denial of that motion. We affirmed at 155 Ga. App. 923 (274 SE2d 44) (1980), because the purported arbitration clause merely referred to the arbitration provisions contained in the “Contract Documents,” yet the parties had expressly deleted from the subcontract any description or other reference to those documents. The Supreme Court reversed on certiorari, Pace Construction Corp. v. Houdaille-Duval-Wright Div. &c., Inc., 247 Ga. 367 (276 SE2d 568) (1981), holding that the defendants were entitled to present parol evidence to explain the meaning of the term by reference to trade usage and custom. The judgment of the trial court is accordingly vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings on the motion to stay in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision.

Judgment vacated and case remanded.

McMurray, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

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

Banke, Judge.

This is a suit by a subcontractor against a contractor and the sureties on the latter’s performance bond. The defendants moved for a stay of the proceedings on the ground that the subcontract had a mandatory arbitration clause, and this appeal is from the denial of that motion. We affirmed at 155 Ga. App. 923 (274 SE2d 44) (1980), because the purported arbitration clause merely referred to the arbitration provisions contained in the “Contract Documents,” yet the parties had expressly deleted from the subcontract any description or other reference to those documents. The Supreme Court reversed on certiorari, Pace Construction Corp. v. Houdaille-Duval-Wright Div. &c., Inc., 247 Ga. 367 (276 SE2d 568) (1981), holding that the defendants were entitled to present parol evidence to explain the meaning of the term by reference to trade usage and custom. The judgment of the trial court is accordingly vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings on the motion to stay in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision.

Judgment vacated and case remanded.

McMurray, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 S.E.2d 764, 158 Ga. App. 33, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pace-construction-corp-v-houdaille-duval-wright-division-gactapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack