O.C.G.A. § 13-1-9 (2019)
Apportionment of entire contracts
In some cases even an entire contract is apportionable, as where the price to be paid is not fixed, or is by the contract itself apportioned according to time; so, if the failure of one party to perform is caused by the act of the other, the contract may still be apportioned.
History
(Orig. Code 1863, § 2688; Code 1868, § 2684; Code 1873, § 2726; Code 1882, § 2726; Civil Code 1895, § 3644; Civil Code 1910, § 4229; Code 1933, § 20-113.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS er’s wife, acting as the employer’s agent, which act was not repudiated by employer, employee entitled to apportionment of the contract. Trawick v. Trussell, 122 Ga. 320, 50 S.E. 86 (1905). Cited in Blun & Sterne v. Holitzer, 53 Ga. 82 (1874); Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Sweat, 177 Ga. 698, 171 S.E. 123 (1933); Union Camp Corp. v. Dyal, 460 F.2d 678 (5th Cir. 1972); Olivetti Leasing Corp. v. Metro-Plastics, Inc., 128 Ga. App. 401, 196 S.E.2d 686 (1973).
Section provides exceptions to general rule that entire contracts not apportionable. - Generally an entire contract, from the contract’s very nature, is not subject to apportionment. It is true that by the terms of this section, provision is made for certain exceptions to the general rule. White v. Sailors, 17 Ga. App. 550, 87 S.E. 831 (1916). Employee abandoning employment contract with consent of employer’s agent, entitled to apportionment. - Where employee abandons contract with consent of employ-
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 17 Am. Jur. 2d, Contracts, §§ 96, 313, 315. 77 Am. Jur. 2d, Vendor and Purchaser, § 53, 521.
C.J.S. - 17A C.J.S., Contracts, § 502.