Smith v. General Finance Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. General Finance Corp.

257 S.E.2d 302, 150 Ga. App. 269, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2144

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1979

Docket56621

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 257 S.E.2d 302 (Smith v. General Finance Corp.) 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

Smith v. General Finance Corp., 257 S.E.2d 302, 150 Ga. App. 269, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2144 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Underwood, Judge.

This is the second appearance of this suit for damages for alleged wrongful repossession of an automobile. In the prior appeal we reversed a verdict for defendant which the trial court had directed on the ground that there was no competent proof of damages. Smith v. General Fin. Corp., 143 Ga. App. 390 (238 SE2d 694) (1977).

Upon remand the court again directed a defendant’s verdict, and plaintiff again appeals; and the Supreme Court, pursuant to our certified question, has held "that evidence of the buyer’s [plaintiffs] repeated, late, irregular payments, which are accepted by the seller [defendant], does create a factual dispute as to whether a quasi new agreement was created under Code § 20-116, and a jury question is also raised as to whether the anti-waiver provision in the loan contract was itself waived.” Smith v. General Fin. Corp., 243 Ga. 500 (1979).

Accordingly the judgment will be reversed and the [270]*270case again remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Argued September 20, 1978 Decided May 17, 1979 Rehearing denied June 13, 1979. Joseph H. King, Jr., for appellant. Jones & Clark, Lewis N. Jones, for appellee.

Judgment reversed and case remanded.

McMurray, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

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

Underwood, Judge.

This is the second appearance of this suit for damages for alleged wrongful repossession of an automobile. In the prior appeal we reversed a verdict for defendant which the trial court had directed on the ground that there was no competent proof of damages. Smith v. General Fin. Corp., 143 Ga. App. 390 (238 SE2d 694) (1977).

Upon remand the court again directed a defendant’s verdict, and plaintiff again appeals; and the Supreme Court, pursuant to our certified question, has held "that evidence of the buyer’s [plaintiffs] repeated, late, irregular payments, which are accepted by the seller [defendant], does create a factual dispute as to whether a quasi new agreement was created under Code § 20-116, and a jury question is also raised as to whether the anti-waiver provision in the loan contract was itself waived.” Smith v. General Fin. Corp., 243 Ga. 500 (1979).

Accordingly the judgment will be reversed and the [270]*270case again remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Argued September 20, 1978 Decided May 17, 1979 Rehearing denied June 13, 1979. Joseph H. King, Jr., for appellant. Jones & Clark, Lewis N. Jones, for appellee.

Judgment reversed and case remanded.

McMurray, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 S.E.2d 302, 150 Ga. App. 269, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-general-finance-corp-gactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack