From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Custom Radio Wholesalers, Inc. v. Hamilton/Avnet Electronics

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 6, 1978
248 S.E.2d 187 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)

Opinion

56140.

ARGUED JULY 10, 1978.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 6, 1978.

Action on account. Fulton State Court. Before Judge Beasley.

Long, Weinberg, Ansley Wheeler, J. Kenneth Moorman, James H. Fisher, II, for appellant.

Maley Crowe, James E. Maley, W. Christopher Bracken, for appellee.


This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff creditor in a suit on open account, defendant contending in its appeal here that the Statute of Frauds' requirement of a writing was not met and that the purchase of the disputed items by its purported agent was unauthorized.

We hold that the Statute of Frauds question is eliminated pursuant to UCC § 109A-2-201 (3)(b) by defendant's acknowledgments that the individual did, in fact, order the goods, the only question of substance being whether he had apparent authority to bind defendant contractually for the purchase price. The trial court, sitting without a jury, concluded that he did; and since we are unable to demonstrate that her finding was "wholly unsupported or clearly erroneous" ( Spivey v. Mayson, 124 Ga. App. 775, 777 ( 186 S.E.2d 154) (1971)), the judgment will not be disturbed. Accord, Pinkerton Laws Co. v. Atlantis Realty Co., 128 Ga. App. 662, 664 (1) ( 197 S.E.2d 749) (1973).

Judgment affirmed. Quillian, P. J., and McMurray, J., concur.

ARGUED JULY 10, 1978 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 6, 1978.


Summaries of

Custom Radio Wholesalers, Inc. v. Hamilton/Avnet Electronics

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 6, 1978
248 S.E.2d 187 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)
Case details for

Custom Radio Wholesalers, Inc. v. Hamilton/Avnet Electronics

Case Details

Full title:CUSTOM RADIO WHOLESALERS, INC. v. HAMILTON/AVNET ELECTRONICS

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Sep 6, 1978

Citations

248 S.E.2d 187 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)
248 S.E.2d 187

Citing Cases

Holcomb v. Evans

Upon a review of the evidence, we cannot conclude that the trial court's finding of apparent authority was…