Shuniak v. AAA Well Drilling & Boring Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Shuniak v. AAA Well Drilling & Boring Co.

247 S.E.2d 601, 146 Ga. App. 785, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2531

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1978

Docket56227

StatusPublished

This text of 247 S.E.2d 601 (Shuniak v. AAA Well Drilling & Boring Co.) 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

Shuniak v. AAA Well Drilling & Boring Co., 247 S.E.2d 601, 146 Ga. App. 785, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2531 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, Judge.

Appellant, characterizing his suit as one for breach of warranty, contends that, because he had introduced evidence indicating there were defects in a well drilling machine he bought from appellee and because he had introduced evidence indicating those defects constituted a warranty breach, the trial court erred in directing a verdict against him. We disagree with appellant’s [786]*786contention and affirm the trial court, as appellant failed to produce evidence to show damages in accordance with UCC § 2-714 (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 230) (Code Ann. § 109A-2 — 714). Carr v. Jacuzzi Bros., 133 Ga. App. 70 (210 SE2d 16) (1974).

Submitted June 29,1978 Decided July 14, 1978. Bates, Baum & Landey, Stanley M. Baum, for appellant. Rhymer & Brock, William Rhymer, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

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

Smith, Judge.

Appellant, characterizing his suit as one for breach of warranty, contends that, because he had introduced evidence indicating there were defects in a well drilling machine he bought from appellee and because he had introduced evidence indicating those defects constituted a warranty breach, the trial court erred in directing a verdict against him. We disagree with appellant’s [786]*786contention and affirm the trial court, as appellant failed to produce evidence to show damages in accordance with UCC § 2-714 (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 230) (Code Ann. § 109A-2 — 714). Carr v. Jacuzzi Bros., 133 Ga. App. 70 (210 SE2d 16) (1974).

Submitted June 29,1978 Decided July 14, 1978. Bates, Baum & Landey, Stanley M. Baum, for appellant. Rhymer & Brock, William Rhymer, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 S.E.2d 601, 146 Ga. App. 785, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shuniak-v-aaa-well-drilling-boring-co-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack