7 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1988–1998 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Potomac Leasing Co. v. Thrashergreen2 sentences1997Mitchell v. Head, 195 Ga.App. 427, 428 , 394 S.E.2d 114 (1990); Potomac Leasing v. Thrasher, 181 Ga.App. 883, 886 (2), 354 S.E.2d 210 (1987). "[D]epending upon which of the two actions is ultimately pursued, the presence of a merger clause in the underlying contract may be determinative as to the successful outcome. 1997Mitchell v. Head, 195 Ga.App. 427, 428 , 394 S.E.2d 114 (1990); Potomac Leasing v. Thrasher, 181 Ga.App. 883, 886 (2), 354 S.E.2d 210 (1987). "[D]epending upon which of the two actions is ultimately pursued, the presence of a merger clause in the underlying contract may be determinative as to the successful outcome. | 1 | 3 |
Garcia v. Charles Evans BMW, Inc.green2 sentences1998“The presence of a merger clause ... is determinative if the defrauded party has not rescinded but has elected to affirm the contract. . . .” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hamilton v. Advance Leasing, 208 Ga. App. at 850 (2); see Garcia v. Charles Evans BMW, 222 Ga. App. 121, 122 ( 473 SE2d 588 ) (1996) (a plaintiff’s failure to rescind lease containing merger clause “is fatal to his claim in tort for fraud”). 1998“The presence of a merger clause ... is determinative if the defrauded party has not rescinded but has elected to affirm the contract. . . .” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hamilton v. Advance Leasing, 208 Ga. App. at 850 (2); see Garcia v. Charles Evans BMW, 222 Ga. App. 121, 122 ( 473 SE2d 588 ) (1996) (a plaintiff’s failure to rescind lease containing merger clause “is fatal to his claim in tort for fraud”). | 1 | 1 |
Hamilton v. Advance Leasing & Rent-A-Car, Inc.green1 sentence1998“The presence of a merger clause ... is determinative if the defrauded party has not rescinded but has elected to affirm the contract. . . .” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hamilton v. Advance Leasing, 208 Ga. App. at 850 (2); see Garcia v. Charles Evans BMW, 222 Ga. App. 121, 122 ( 473 SE2d 588 ) (1996) (a plaintiff’s failure to rescind lease containing merger clause “is fatal to his claim in tort for fraud”). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Headgreen2 sentences1997Mitchell v. Head, 195 Ga.App. 427, 428 , 394 S.E.2d 114 (1990); Potomac Leasing v. Thrasher, 181 Ga.App. 883, 886 (2), 354 S.E.2d 210 (1987). "[D]epending upon which of the two actions is ultimately pursued, the presence of a merger clause in the underlying contract may be determinative as to the successful outcome. 1997Mitchell v. Head, 195 Ga.App. 427, 428 , 394 S.E.2d 114 (1990); Potomac Leasing v. Thrasher, 181 Ga.App. 883, 886 (2), 354 S.E.2d 210 (1987). "[D]epending upon which of the two actions is ultimately pursued, the presence of a merger clause in the underlying contract may be determinative as to the successful outcome. | 1 | 1 |
Ouseley v. Fossgreen2 sentences1990If the defrauded party has not rescinded but has elected to affirm the contract, he is relegated to a recovery in contract and the merger clause will prevent his recovery.’ (Cit.) This result obtains because ‘ “[w]here the [allegedly defrauded party] affirms a contract which contains a merger or disclaimer provision and retains the [benefits], he is es-topped from asserting that he relied upon the [other party’s] misrepresentation and his action for fraud must fail.” ’ [Cits.]” Ouseley v. Foss, 188 Ga. App. 766, 768 (I) ( 374 SE2d 534 ) (1988). *429 Decided April 20, 1990. 1990If the defrauded party has not rescinded but has elected to affirm the contract, he is relegated to a recovery in contract and the merger clause will prevent his recovery.’ (Cit.) This result obtains because ‘ “[w]here the [allegedly defrauded party] affirms a contract which contains a merger or disclaimer provision and retains the [benefits], he is es-topped from asserting that he relied upon the [other party’s] misrepresentation and his action for fraud must fail.” ’ [Cits.]” Ouseley v. Foss, 188 Ga. App. 766, 768 (I) ( 374 SE2d 534 ) (1988). *429 Decided April 20, 1990. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City Dodge, Inc. v. Gardner
green
1 sentence1997In City Dodge , the Georgia Supreme Court held that an "as is" contract does not negate an express warranty, even in the presence of a merger clause. [2] City Dodge, supra at 767 , 208 S.E.2d 794 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Nexus Services, Inc. v. Manning Tronics, Inc.
green
2 sentences1993“The presence of a merger clause in the underlying contract is determinative if the defrauded party has not rescinded but has elected to affirm the contract.” (Punctuation omitted.) Nexus Services v. Manning Tronics, 201 Ga. App. 255 ( 410 SE2d 810 ) (1991). 1993“The presence of a merger clause in the underlying contract is determinative if the defrauded party has not rescinded but has elected to affirm the contract.” (Punctuation omitted.) Nexus Services v. Manning Tronics, 201 Ga. App. 255 ( 410 SE2d 810 ) (1991). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.