Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448As used in this part, the term:
(Ga. L. 1980, p. 1233, § 1; Ga. L. 1984, p. 522, § 1; Ga. L. 1985, p. 149, § 10; Ga. L. 1986, p. 10, § 10; Ga. L. 1988, p. 1868, § 1; Ga. L. 1989, p. 218, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 2370, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 757, § 1.)
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1988, "Code Section 16-12-38" was substituted for "Code Section 10-12-38" at the end of paragraph (6).
- For note, "The Georgia Sale of Business Opportunities Act," see 1 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 219 (1985).
- Term "individual", as used in paragraph (10) of O.C.G.A. § 10-1-410, may include artificial persons. Therefore, the fact that the lessee is a corporation would not preclude a finding that the lessor is a "seller" as defined in paragraph (10). Park Leasing Co. v. TWS, Inc., 206 Ga. App. 864, 426 S.E.2d 620 (1992).
- Because the defendant headed a field installation and maintenance services division of a business engaged in designing, manufacturing, and marketing electronic components and equipment for the coin operated telephone market, defendant was personally a "seller" within the meaning of paragraph (10) of O.C.G.A. § 10-1-410 in that the defendant was an individual who had a substantive interest in a corporation which offered to sell a business opportunity. Hornsby v. Phillips, 190 Ga. App. 335, 378 S.E.2d 870 (1989).
Officers of a limited liability company were "sellers" within the meaning of the Sale of Business Opportunities Act (SBOA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-410(10), because the officers were individuals who had a substantive interest in a multilevel distribution company or effectively controlled such company or the company's activities; accordingly, pursuant to the Fair Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-399(a), and the SBOA, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-417(b), each officer was subject to personal liability for any violation of the SBOA which he or she had committed and which was proved by a physician. Amerireach.com, LLC v. Walker, 290 Ga. 261, 719 S.E.2d 489 (2011).
- Franchiser's sale of a restaurant franchise to a franchisee did not meet the definition of a business opportunity under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-410(2)(A)(iii) because the sales and marketing program associated with the franchise system were provided to the franchisee in conjunction with the licensing of registered trademarks and service marks; thus, the Georgia Sale of Business Opportunities Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-410 et seq., did not apply to the sale. Am. Casual Dining, L.P. v. Moe's Southwest Grill, L.L.C., 426 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (N.D. Ga. 2006).
- General statute of limitations, providing that an action to enforce a right accruing to an individual under state statute must be brought within 20 years after the action accrues, governs a cause of action arising solely under the Sale of Business Opportunities Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-410 et seq., since the Act itself contains no statute of limitations. Hornsby v. Phillips, 190 Ga. App. 335, 378 S.E.2d 870 (1989).
Contractual defenses are inapplicable when an action is based not on the contract but solely on an alleged violation of the Sale of Business Opportunities Act, O.C.G.A § 10-1-410 et seq. Hornsby v. Phillips, 190 Ga. App. 335, 378 S.E.2d 870 (1989).
- Investment in cattle feeding and sales program was exempt under the agribusiness exemption in division (2)(B)(iii) of O.C.G.A. § 10-1-410. Seale v. Miller, 698 F. Supp. 883 (N.D. Ga. 1988).
- Trial court erred in dismissing a physician's complaint against a health and nutrition multi-level distribution company's officers alleging violations of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq., and the Georgia Sale of Business Opportunities Act (SBOA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-410 et seq., on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because in response to requests for admissions, the company admitted that the company was a "multilevel distribution company" as defined in the SBOA, that the provisions of the SBOA, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-415, applied to any agreement made in Georgia, that the officers were founding members of the company and were officers when the physician became a marketer; the officers also admitted that the physician's cancellation rights under Georgia law were generally known to the officers, and the complaint was sufficient to state a claim against the officers. Walker v. Amerireach.com, 306 Ga. App. 658, 703 S.E.2d 100 (2010), aff'd in part, 290 Ga. 261, 719 S.E.2d 489 (2011).
Cited in Georgia ex rel. Adm'r of Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Family Vending, Inc., 171 Bankr. 907 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994); Touchton v. Amway Corp., 247 Ga. App. 269, 543 S.E.2d 782 (2000).
- Practices forbidden by state deceptive trade practice and consumer protection acts - pyramid or ponzi or referral sales schemes, 48 A.L.R.6th 511.
Judicial remedies for proceeds and funds from Ponzi schemes, 100 A.L.R.6th 281.
Total Results: 1
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-11-30
Citation: 290 Ga. 261, 719 S.E.2d 489, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 4001, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 948
Snippet: them was a “seller” within the meaning of OCGA § 10-1-410 (10). Under that statute, the term “ ‘[sjeller’