Woodfin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Woodfin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

172 S.E.2d 880, 121 Ga. App. 101, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 1125

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 4, 1970

Docket44754

StatusPublished

This text of 172 S.E.2d 880 (Woodfin v. General Motors Acceptance 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

Woodfin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 172 S.E.2d 880, 121 Ga. App. 101, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 1125 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

In a suit by a finance company to recover a deficiency balance on the purchase price of a repossessed automobile, defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss. The trial judge certified that the order should be subject to review. The only issue raised is whether the omission of the automobile dealer’s name in the blank provided on a form conditional-sale contract leaves the parties to the contract so uncertain as to make it unenforceable, even though signed by the dealer’s finance manager, an authorized agent, and though the name of the dealer appears elsewhere on the face of the contract.

It cannot be said as a matter of law on motion to dismiss the petition that this contract in no way indicates or shows who are the parties to the contract. Oglesby Gro. Co. v. Williams Mfg. Co., 112 Ga. 359 (37 SE 372). See also Fraser v. Jarrett, 153 Ga. 441 (112 SE 487); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Teal, 112 Ga. App. 236 (2) (144 SE2d 567); Cooper v. G. E. Constr. Co., 116 Ga. App. 690 (158 SE2d 305).

The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Jordan, P. J., and Whitman, J., concur.

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

Hall, Judge.

In a suit by a finance company to recover a deficiency balance on the purchase price of a repossessed automobile, defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss. The trial judge certified that the order should be subject to review. The only issue raised is whether the omission of the automobile dealer’s name in the blank provided on a form conditional-sale contract leaves the parties to the contract so uncertain as to make it unenforceable, even though signed by the dealer’s finance manager, an authorized agent, and though the name of the dealer appears elsewhere on the face of the contract.

It cannot be said as a matter of law on motion to dismiss the petition that this contract in no way indicates or shows who are the parties to the contract. Oglesby Gro. Co. v. Williams Mfg. Co., 112 Ga. 359 (37 SE 372). See also Fraser v. Jarrett, 153 Ga. 441 (112 SE 487); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Teal, 112 Ga. App. 236 (2) (144 SE2d 567); Cooper v. G. E. Constr. Co., 116 Ga. App. 690 (158 SE2d 305).

The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Jordan, P. J., and Whitman, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 S.E.2d 880, 121 Ga. App. 101, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 1125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodfin-v-general-motors-acceptance-corp-gactapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack