Al & Zack Brown, Inc. v. Bullock

10 Citing cases

  1. Harris v. Tutt

    702 S.E.2d 707 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 9 times

    (Citation omitted.) Al and Zack Brown, Inc. v. Bullock, 238 Ga. App. 246, 247 ( 518 SE2d 458) (1999). See also OCGA § 13-6-4 ("The question of damages being one for the jury, a reviewing court should not interfere unless the damages are either so small or so excessive as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias.").

  2. Harvey v. J. H. Harvey Co.

    276 Ga. 762 (Ga. 2003)   Cited 4 times

    "Thomas Mote Trucking, Inc. v. PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., 246 Ga. App. 306, 313 ( 540 S.E.2d 261) (2000), quoting Al Zack Brown, Inc. v. Bullock, 238 Ga. App. 246, 251 ( 518 S.E.2d 458) (1999). Accord Ike v. Kroger Co., 248 Ga. 531, 534 ( 546 S.E.2d 903) (2001).

  3. Warren, M.D., P.C. v. Weber Warren C

    272 Ga. App. 232 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 20 times

    (Citation omitted.) Al and Zack Brown, Inc. v. Bullock, 238 Ga. App. 246, 251 (2) ( 518 SE2d 458) (1999). The LLC argues that evidence of the balance in its bank account at the time of trial was insufficient proof of the funds to which Warren was entitled, particularly in light of evidence of billings of approximately $6,000 for charges generated after Weber and Warren resigned.

  4. City of Gainesville v. Waters

    258 Ga. App. 555 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that plaintiffs "presented evidence of repeated incidents of flooding to [their] property sufficient to establish an abatable nuisance"

    We apply the "any evidence" test to our review of the trial court's denial of a j.n.o.v., and affirm the trial court's ruling as long as there is some evidence to support the verdict. Al and Zack Brown, Inc. v. Bullock, 238 Ga. App. 246, 247 ( 518 S.E.2d 458) (1999). The City, therefore, must show "that there was no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and that the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, demanded a verdict in [its] favor.

  5. Heart of Texas Dodge, Inc. v. Star Coach

    255 Ga. App. 801 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 20 times
    Ruling custom conversion of new vehicle is "closely analogous to repair cases" so "the UCC does not apply" (citing Am. Warehouse & Moving Serv. of Atlanta, Inc. v. Floyd's Diesel Servs., Inc., 296 S.E.2d 64, 66 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982) ("[T]he transaction was a contract for appellee's services to repair appellant's original engine and . . . the supplying of new component parts was merely an 'incidental part' of appellee's overall services in this regard."))

    " See generally Al Zack Brown v. Bullock, 238 Ga. App. 246, 249 (1) ( 518 S.E.2d 458) (1999). Article 2 of the UCC is expressly limited to transactions involving the sale of goods. If a contract involves only the sale of goods, the UCC applies. If a contract involves the rendition of services, the UCC does not apply. Difficulty arises in determining whether the UCC applies where, as here, a contract involves both goods and services.

  6. Thomas Mote Trucking, Inc. v. PCL Civil Constructors, Inc.

    246 Ga. App. 306 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 12 times
    Reversing award of zero dollars in damages where there was evidence as to the reasonable rental value of the property

    (Punctuation omitted.) Al Zack Brown, Inc. v. Bullock, 238 Ga. App. 246, 251 (2) ( 518 S.E.2d 458) (1999). There is no question that PCL was entitled to hire.

  7. LNV Corp. v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co.

    No. 16-14801 (11th Cir. Jan. 11, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Ga. Code Ann. §§ 13-6-1, 13-6-2; see also, e.g., Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia, Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. I: Civil Cases, § 18.010 (5th ed. 2017) ("Damages recoverable for a breach of contract are such as arise naturally and according to the usual course of things from the breach and such as the parties contemplated when the contract was made as the probable result of the breach."). Accordingly, Georgia courts have explained that a plaintiff suing for breach of contract should, if successful, recover the full benefit of his bargain, but no more. See Al & Zack Brown, Inc. v. Bullock, 518 S.E.2d 458, 461 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999) (explaining that a damage award should "put [the plaintiff] in as good a position as if the defendant had fully performed the contract") (internal quotation marks omitted); Gainesville Glass Co., Inc. v. Don Hammond, Inc., 278 S.E.2d 182, 185-86 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981) ("[A]n injured party cannot be placed in a better position than he would have been in if the contract had not been breached."). Importantly here, Georgia courts have held—in common with the prevailing understanding—that while a plaintiff need not prove a precise measure of damages, it must provide "data sufficient to enable [the factfinder] to estimate with reasonable certainty the amount of the damages."

  8. Diamond Crystal Brands v. Food Movers International

    CASE NO. CV407-42 (S.D. Ga. Jun. 20, 2008)

    The case is governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, which permits a seller to recover the price of goods accepted by the buyer. O.C.G.A. § 11-2-709(1); Al and Zack Brown, Inc. v. Bullock, 238 Ga. App. 246, 249, 518 S.E.2d 458 (1999).

  9. Florists' Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lewis Taylor Farms

    7:05-cv-50 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2008)   Cited 5 times

    But if the buyer furnished raw materials and instructions, the contract is more likely for the provision of services. OMAC, Inc. v. Southwestern Mach. Tool Works, Inc., 374 S.E.2d 829, 829 (Ga.App. 1988); Al Zack Brown, Inc. v. Bullock, 518 S.E.2d 458, 462 (Ga.App. 1999). A typical example of a hybrid contract for goods is a contract for a good that requires installation; in such a case the service of installation is incidental to the provision of the good itself.

  10. Generations Ranch, LLC v. Zarbock

    1 CA-CV 10-0771 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2012)   Cited 3 times

    Two of the cases involve a contract for the provision of services only, so they do not shed light on the situation before us. See Hunter's Rune Stables, Inc. v. Triple H Constr. Co., Inc., 938 F. Supp. 166, 168 (W.D.N.Y. 1996) (stating that contract for construction of horse barn not governed by UCC because it did not involve a sale of any goods); Al & Zack Brown, Inc. v. Bullock, 518 S.E.2d 458, 462 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999) (deciding UCC inapplicable because contract not for sale of steel but for fabrication of steel supplied by others and for installation services). The remaining cases do not employ a bright-line rule that contracts involving construction are always exempted from the UCC, as Generations contends; rather, they turn on the unique facts of the particular cases.