Sulunias Banana Co. v. Fruit Dispatch Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sulunias Banana Co. v. Fruit Dispatch Co.

89 S.E. 376, 18 Ga. App. 306, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 314

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 27, 1916

Docket7221

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 376 (Sulunias Banana Co. v. Fruit Dispatch 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

Sulunias Banana Co. v. Fruit Dispatch Co., 89 S.E. 376, 18 Ga. App. 306, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 314 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

I-Iodges, J.

1. A contract between a vendor and a purchaser, providing that all goods “are sold by the [vendor] company delivered f. o. b. freight-cars at seaboard,” with the exception of special sales made after the arrival of the goods at the final destination to purchasers personally inspecting and accepting the same on the spot, that after delivery to the carrier at the seaboard the goods are at the risk of the purchaser, save the special sales referred to, and that “every order to the company . . shall be regarded as being made under and subject to the terms and conditions” above set forth, “unless waived in a writing signed by the president of the . . company, it being expressly stated and understood that no officer, employee, or representative of the company, . . except only the president, has any authority to make any contract or sale of [such goods] except upon and subject to the . . terms, conditions, and provisions ” of the contract, is binding, and can not be changed or varied, except in accordance with the terms thereof. Stamps v. Fruit Dispatch do., 8 Ga. App. 508 (70 S. E. SI).

2. Having signed a contract of this character, the purchaser will not be heard to say that a resident manager or local agent of the company agreed with him that its terms, stipulations, and conditions would be changed and varied on account of the contemplated purchase of goods from the company, and that he and the resident manager or local agent did in fact alter and change the terms of the contract. Evidence of this character was inadmissible, the execution of the contract being admitted.

4. The evidence showed that the company performed its duty under the contract, and that the plaintiff in error owed for the goods purchased; and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari. judgment affirmed.

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

I-Iodges, J.

1. A contract between a vendor and a purchaser, providing that all goods “are sold by the [vendor] company delivered f. o. b. freight-cars at seaboard,” with the exception of special sales made after the arrival of the goods at the final destination to purchasers personally inspecting and accepting the same on the spot, that after delivery to the carrier at the seaboard the goods are at the risk of the purchaser, save the special sales referred to, and that “every order to the company . . shall be regarded as being made under and subject to the terms and conditions” above set forth, “unless waived in a writing signed by the president of the . . company, it being expressly stated and understood that no officer, employee, or representative of the company, . . except only the president, has any authority to make any contract or sale of [such goods] except upon and subject to the . . terms, conditions, and provisions ” of the contract, is binding, and can not be changed or varied, except in accordance with the terms thereof. Stamps v. Fruit Dispatch do., 8 Ga. App. 508 (70 S. E. SI).

2. Having signed a contract of this character, the purchaser will not be heard to say that a resident manager or local agent of the company agreed with him that its terms, stipulations, and conditions would be changed and varied on account of the contemplated purchase of goods from the company, and that he and the resident manager or local agent did in fact alter and change the terms of the contract. Evidence of this character was inadmissible, the execution of the contract being admitted.

4. The evidence showed that the company performed its duty under the contract, and that the plaintiff in error owed for the goods purchased; and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari. judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 376, 18 Ga. App. 306, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sulunias-banana-co-v-fruit-dispatch-co-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack