O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 24-3-4 (2019)

Circumstances surrounding execution of contracts

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The surrounding circumstances shall always be proper subjects of proof to aid in the construction of contracts.

History

Code 1981, § 24-3-4, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.

Annotations

Law reviews. For article, “Supplementing Written Agreements: Restating the Parol Evi-

dence Rule in Terms of Credibility and Relative Fault,” see 34 Emory L.J. 93 (1985). JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1863, § 3727, former Code 1868, § 3751, former Code 1873, § 3804, former Code 1882, § 3804, former Civil Code 1895, § 5205, former Civil Code 1910, § 5792, former Code 1933, § 38-505, and former O.C.G.A. § 24-6-4 are included in the annotations for this Code section. When former statute applied. - Former statute applied only if a contract was of doubtful meaning; but a plain and unambiguous contract cannot be contradicted by parol. Ward v. Campbell, 73 Ga. 97, 1884 Ga. LEXIS 30 (1884) (decided under former Code 1882, § 3804); Kellos v. Parker-Sharpe, Inc., 245 Ga. 130, 263 S.E.2d 138, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 1308, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 715 (1980) (decided under former Code 1933, § 38-505). Ambiguities are explainable by the surrounding circumstances. Armistead v. McGuire, 46 Ga. 232, 1872 Ga. LEXIS 40 (1872) (decided under former Code 1868, § 3751); National Manufacture & Stores Corp. v. Dekle, 48 Ga. App. 515, 173 S.E. 408, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 116 (1934) (decided under former Code 1933, § 38505). When the language of the written instrument may be fairly understood in more ways than one, it should be taken in the sense put upon it by the parties at the time of its execution, and the court will hear evidence as to the facts and surroundings. National Manufacture & Stores Corp. v. Dekle, 48 Ga. App. 515, 173 S.E. 408, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 116 (1934) (decided under former Code 1933, § 38-

505); Irwin v. Young, 212 Ga. 1, 90 S.E.2d 22, 1955 Ga. LEXIS 523 (1955) (decided under former Code 1933, § 38-505). Circumstances accompanying making of note. - Parol evidence was admissible to show the circumstances under which notes were made, and to explain the consideration and show the year in which the consideration appearing on the face of the notes was actually advanced. Anderson v. Brown, 72 Ga. 713, 1884 Ga. LEXIS 309 (1884) (decided under former Code 1882, § 3804); Camp v. Matthews, 143 Ga. 393, 85 S.E. 196, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 456 (1915) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5792). Admissibility of parol evidence of site plan to show nonexistence of use restriction. - In a land use restriction action, a trial court erred by failing to consider a 1997 site plan, which allowed the parties to seek to amend the use of the land at issue and future development of the land; therefore, the trial court erred in enjoining a developer from constructing condominium towers since no such use restriction existed. CPI Phipps, LLC v. 100 Park Ave. Partners, L.P., 288 Ga. App. 614, 654 S.E.2d 690, 2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 1276 (2007), cert. denied, No. S08C0618, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 286 (Ga. Mar. 10, 2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-6-4). Improper admission. - If surrounding circumstances were improperly admitted, it was harmless error since substantially the same facts had already been established by the evidence of the plaintiff. Wells v. Gress, 118 Ga. 566, 45 S.E. 418, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 620 (1903) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 5205).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 17A Am. Jur. 2d, Contracts, § 323 et seq. 29A Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, §§ 1083, 1117, 1118. ALR. Parol evidence rule; right to show fraud

in inducement or execution of written contract, 56 A.L.R. 13. Competency of parol evidence to vary, contradict, or add to terms of ticket or token issued by carrier for transportation or accommodation of passenger, 62 A.L.R. 655.

“Contractual” consideration as regards parol evidence rule, 100 A.L.R. 17. Admissibility of parol evidence to show that a bill or note was conditional, or given for a special purpose, 105 A.L.R. 1346. Admissibility of subsequent declarations of settlor to aid interpretation of trust, 51 A.L.R.2d 820. Admissibility of evidence of value or extent of decedent’s estate in action

against estate for reasonable value of services furnished decedent, 65 A.L.R.2d 945. Admissibility of oral evidence to show that a writing was a sham agreement not intended to create legal relations, 71 A.L.R.2d 382. Admissibility of parol evidence to connect signed and unsigned documents relied upon as memorandum to satisfy statute of frauds, 81 A.L.R.2d 991.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 72 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: State v. Almanza, 820 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Almanza, 820 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 4× “This case presents an unusual situation: Rule 803 (4) is materially identical both to Federal Rule 803 (4) and to the medical treatment and diagnosis hearsay exception under the old Evidence Code (former OCGA § 24-3-4 ). Rule 803 (4) reads: The following shall not be excluded by…”

Teal v. State, 647 S.E.2d 15 (Ga. 2007). · cites it 6× “Citing OCGA § 24-3-4, 5 appellant unsuccessfully sought to exclude the testimony of the physician repeating what appellant had told him, and contends on appeal that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony.”

The State v. Almanza., 807 S.E.2d 517 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 16× “803 (4), 4 provides that hearsay statements are admissible "even though the declarant is available as a witness" if they are made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describ[e] medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or…”

State v. Butler, 349 S.E.2d 684 (Ga. 1986). · cites it 8× “OCGA § 24-3-4 provides that "[s]tatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably…”

Lee v. Peacock, 404 S.E.2d 473 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 15× “Our distinguished colleagues in the minority note that the record contains certain hospital records pertaining to the deceased and argue that the information in these records is admissible under OCGA § 24-3-4, and is sufficient to preclude the grant of appellee's motion for…”

Thomas v. State, 654 S.E.2d 682 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “Thus, as we have previously determined that statements admissible under OCGA § 24-3-4 are reliable, these continue to be admissible even after Crawford .”

Hyde v. State, 377 S.E.2d 187 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 8× “OCGA § 24-3-4 permits, as an exception to the hearsay rule, testimony concerning statements made as part of the medical history when relevant to diagnosis or treatment.”

Schofield v. Gulley, 614 S.E.2d 740 (Ga. 2005). · cites it 4× “According to the medical record, Gulley stated that his injury was sustained while “pulling a lady back in a window” who was “trying to jump.”

Bearfield v. State, 699 S.E.2d 363 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “[1] The state objected on the basis of hearsay. The trial court sustained the objection.”

Cupe v. State, 560 S.E.2d 700 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “The court ultimately allowed the testimony under OCGA § 24-3-4 as a statement made for a medical diagnosis or treatment.”

Brown v. State, 714 S.E.2d 395 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “See OCGA § 24-3-4. 3 Rather, Brown’s challenge to the Examining Nurse’s testimony is based upon her recounting of M.”

Roberson v. State, 370 S.E.2d 661 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 7× “Under OCGA § 24-3-4, “[statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent…”

Show all 72 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.