purchasers claim in Georgia

2026“The theory of unjust enrichment applies when there is no legal contract and when there has been a benefit conferred which would result in an unjust enrichment unless compensated.” Tidikis v. Network for Medical Communications & Research, LLC, 274 Ga. App. 807, 811 (2) ( 619 SE2d 481 ) (2005) (punctuation omitted).

2026“The theory of unjust enrichment applies when there is no legal contract and when there has been a benefit conferred which would result in an unjust enrichment unless compensated.” Tidikis v. Network for Medical Communications & Research, LLC, 274 Ga. App. 807, 811 (2) ( 619 SE2d 481 ) (2005) (punctuation omitted).

2014Bank, 202 Ga. App. 639, 640 (1) ( 415 SE2d 193 ) (1992) (party not prevented from reading the contract cannot claim he was fraudulently induced to sign by promises which contradict the contract terms). for the Franchisee; or (iii) a specific level of sales, income, gross or net profits of existing centers (whether franchised or company-owned) other than as specifically described in the Offering Circular.

2014Bank, 202 Ga. App. 639, 640 (1) ( 415 SE2d 193 ) (1992) (party not prevented from reading the contract cannot claim he was fraudulently induced to sign by promises which contradict the contract terms). for the Franchisee; or (iii) a specific level of sales, income, gross or net profits of existing centers (whether franchised or company-owned) other than as specifically described in the Offering Circular.

2014Novare, 290 Ga. at 189 (2) (“[p]urchasers are not entitled to back out of a written agreement whose terms expressly contradict the oral representations on which Purchasers claim to have relied.”); Campbell v. Citizens & Southern Nat.

2014Novare, 290 Ga. at 189 (2) (“[purchasers are not entitled to back out of a written agreement whose terms expressly contradict the oral representations on which Purchasers claim to have relied.”); Campbell v. Citizens & Southern Nat.

2011The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order of judgment on the pleadings as to fraud in the inducement based on active concealment, negligent misrepresentation, negligent supervision, and violation of the FBPA. 3 See Sarif v. Novare Group, Inc., 306 Ga. App. 741, 742 (703 *188 SE2d 348) (2010).

2011Further, “[t]he remedy of rescission for nonperformance is appropriate when the breach is so substantial and fundamental as to defeat the object of the contract.” (Emphasis supplied.) Lanier Home Center v. Underwood, 252 Ga. App. 745, 746 (1) ( 557 SE2d 76 ) (2001).

2011Further, “[t]he remedy of rescission for nonperformance is appropriate when the breach is so substantial and fundamental as to defeat the object of the contract.” (Emphasis supplied.) Lanier Home Center v. Underwood, 252 Ga. App. 745, 746 (1) ( 557 SE2d 76 ) (2001).

2011See Forrest Cambridge Apartments v. Redi-Floors, Inc., 295 Ga. App. 840, 842 (3) ( 673 SE2d 318 ) (2009) (“We are limited on appeal to those grounds presented to and ruled upon by the trial court and then enumerated as error.”) (citations and punctuation omitted).

2011See Forrest Cambridge Apartments v. Redi-Floors, Inc., 295 Ga. App. 840, 842 (3) ( 673 SE2d 318 ) (2009) (“We are limited on appeal to those grounds presented to and ruled upon by the trial court and then enumerated as error.”) (citations and punctuation omitted).

2011For an employer to be held liable for negligent supervision, there must be “ ‘sufficient evidence to establish that the employer reasonably knew or should have known of an employee’s tendencies to engage in certain behavior relevant to the injuries allegedly *191 incurred by the plaintiff.’ ” Leo v. Waffle House, Inc., 298 Ga. App. 838, 841 ( 681 SE2d 258 ) (2009) (citation omitted).

2011For an employer to be held liable for negligent supervision, there must be “ ‘sufficient evidence to establish that the employer reasonably knew or should have known of an employee’s tendencies to engage in certain behavior relevant to the injuries allegedly *191 incurred by the plaintiff.’ ” Leo v. Waffle House, Inc., 298 Ga. App. 838, 841 ( 681 SE2d 258 ) (2009) (citation omitted).

2011To reflect its grant of a new trial, and the Purchasers’ subsequent dismissal of the fraud claim, the trial court entered an amended judgment contemplating only the Purchasers’ claim for rescission. 11 On appeal, the Seller asserts that the trial court erred by denying her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the Purchasers’ rescission claim because such claim was improper in this case. 12 “A party may rescind a contract without the consent of the opposite party on the ground of nonperformance by that party but only when both parties can be restored to the condition in which they

2011To reflect its grant of a new trial, and the Purchasers’ subsequent dismissal of the fraud claim, the trial court entered an amended judgment contemplating only the Purchasers’ claim for rescission. 11 On appeal, the Seller asserts that the trial court erred by denying her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the Purchasers’ rescission claim because such claim was improper in this case. 12 “A party may rescind a contract without the consent of the opposite party on the ground of nonperformance by that party but only when both parties can be restored to the condition in which they

1962Jur. 1083 , § 708; Jordan v. Pollock, 14 Ga. 145, 157 ; Gordon v. Irvine, 105 Ga. 144, 150 ( 31 SE 151 ); Georgia R.