Case No. A08A1949
Popular in Legal Environment Of Business
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Varsha Mandiga on Thursday March 10, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to BUSA 2106 at Georgia State University taught by Grelecki in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 33 views.
Reviews for Case No. A08A1949
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 03/10/16
Varsha Mandiga GENERAL STEEL, INC. v. DELTA BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. et al. FACTS Case No. A08A1949 When: March 27 , 2009. Where: Court of Appeals of Georgia. Who: Appellant Jones, Cork & Miller, Hubert C. Lovein Jr., Cater C. Thompson, Macon Appellees – Duffy & Feemster, Stanley Earl Harris Jr., Benjamin S. Eichholz, Savannah. PHIPPS, Judge. What: General Steel, Inc. appeals ruling on crossmotions for summary judgment in connection with its breach of guaranty claim against Benjamin Eichholz, who had executed a guaranty on behalf of his company, Delta Building Systems, In. Because the trail court erred in the contested rulings, we reverse. ISSUE(S) Eichholz wanted to obligate himself personally to pay General Steel up to $30,000 of his corporation's indebtedness so that his company could obtain on credit building materials from General Steel. It is undisputed that, after Eichholz gave General Steel the personal guaranty, Delta obtained on credit approximately $30,000 of building materials from General Steel, failed to pay for those materials, and submitted to a judgment for its indebtedness to General Steel. Eichholz cited undisputed evidence that General Steel had not sent directly to him any invoice or payment information regarding Delta's account. o The trial court agreed with Eichholz that the provision constituted a condition precedent that General Steel had not performed. It thus ruled in Eichholz's favor on the parties' cross summary judgment motions. General Steel challenges these rulings on appeal. General Steel claims that its failure to send the account information directly to Eichholz was not a material breach of the guaranty. RULE(S) OCGA § 1322. Rules for interpretation of contracts generally. OCGA § 1323. Ascertainment and enforcement of intention of parties generally. OCGA § 1324. Ascertainment of intention of parties where meaning placed on contract by one party known to other. OCGA § 1071. Contract of surety ship or guaranty defined; liability of surety generally. OCGA § 10722. Discharge of surety by increase of risk. ANAYLSIS The case employed no explicit words of condition, and there are no expressions in the entirety of the guaranty to the effect that the cited provision is to be construed as a condition precedent. We conclude as a matter of law that the contractual language contained no ambiguity as to whether a condition precedent was createdit did not. Although Eichholz deposed that his guaranty was effective only if he received from General Steel monthly billings, such extrinsic evidence is unavailing. Where, as here, “the contract's terms are clear and unambiguous and do not clearly establish a condition precedent, cannot construe the contract to create one.” In doing so in this case, the trial court erred. Consequently, the grant of summary judgment to Eichholz was improper. CONCLUSION Eichholz that he was aware that Delta was receiving materials from General Steel to complete a certain construction project; that had he received copies of General Steel's invoices, he would have made sure that his company paid General Steel; and pertinently, that he could have obtained from his company at any time copies of General Steel's invoices. Furthermore, given that Eichholz's liability under the guaranty was expressly capped at $30,000, there is no evidence that General Steel's failure to comply with the cited provision exposed Eichholz to greater liability. Because General Steel's failure to comply with the cited term was not a material breach of the guaranty so as to have discharged Eichholz from his obligation thereunder, the trial court erred in denying General Steel summary judgment Judgment reversed. 2
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'