Summary
holding that even evidence of seller's acceptance of buyer's repeated, late, irregular payments still created a factual dispute precluding summary judgment given anti-waiver provision in contract
Summary of this case from J.P. Carey Enters. v. Cuentas, Inc.Opinion
34562.
ARGUED FEBRUARY 21, 1979.
DECIDED APRIL 5, 1979. REHEARING DENIED APRIL 17, 1979.
Certified question from the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Joseph H. King, Jr., for appellant.
Steven Gottlieb, Elizabeth Coleman-Stroup, amicus curiae.
Lewis N. Jones, for appellee.
The following question in this case has been certified to this court by the Court of Appeals: "In a suit for damages for alleged wrongful repossession of an automobile, arising out of a claimed default under a time payment contract of sale, does the evidence of repeated late, irregular payments accepted by the seller create a factual dispute as to whether a quasi new agreement was created under Code § 20-116, according to the decision of Curl v. Federal Savings c. Assn., 241 Ga. 29 ( 244 S.E.2d 812) and as held in Hayes v. Fidelity Accept. Corp., 147 Ga. App. 144 ( 248 S.E.2d 209); or does the language in the loan contract providing that: `The failure of Seller ... to enforce Seller's rights ... shall not be construed as waiver of any provision ... nor shall it preclude Seller from exercising any of his rights with respect to a subsequent breach of this agreement ...' preclude a jury question, as held in Fair v. General Finance Corp. of Ga., 147 Ga. App. 706 ( 250 S.E.2d 9) (1978)?"
As held in J.E.M. Enterprises v. Taco Pronto, Inc., 145 Ga. App. 573 (3) ( 244 S.E.2d 253) (1978); Crawford v. First Nat. Bank of Rome, 137 Ga. App. 294, 295 ( 223 S.E.2d 488) (1976); Abercrombie v. Howard, Weil, LaBouisse, Fredericks, Inc., 136 Ga. App. 79 (2) ( 220 S.E.2d 275) (1975); Few v. Automobile Financing, Inc., 101 Ga. App. 783, 784 ( 115 S.E.2d 196) (1960); and Commercial Cas. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 54 Ga. App. 530, 533, 534 ( 188 S.E. 362) (1936), a provision in a contract against waiver of contractual rights may itself be found by the jury to have been waived. Insofar as Fair v. General Finance Corp. of Ga., supra, indicates otherwise, it is disapproved.
Accordingly, our answer to the certified question is that evidence of the buyer's repeated, late, irregular payments; which are accepted by the seller, 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.
Certified question answered in the affirmative, with further answer that a jury question is also raised as to whether the anti-waiver provision in the loan contract was itself waived. All the Justices concur.