Appellants' contention that the grant of summary judgment was improper because appellee's supplemental affidavit purportedly contradicted his deposition testimony is similarly without merit, as the issue addressed in the challenged testimony is not material to this action and thus has no legal significance. Compare Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27 ( 343 S.E.2d 680) (1986) (contradictory testimony on material factual question may preclude summary judgment) with Barnett Mtg. Trust v. Woods Mill, 151 Ga. App. 133-134 (1) ( 259 S.E.2d 140) (1979) (summary judgment proper because disputed issue not material to the case). Moreover, appellee withdrew his affidavit before the trial judge ruled on the motion for summary judgment.
Howell for evaluation as a matter of course in response to the "Class C" designation received by the appellant on his pre-employment physical and that the subsequent decision to terminate his employment as a transit policeman was made in direct reliance upon Dr. Howell's evaluation. A dispute as to an immaterial fact or one which has no legal significance to the outcome of the case does not preclude summary judgment. See Barnett Mtg. Trust v. Woods Mill, Ltd., 151 Ga. App. 133 ( 259 S.E.2d 140) (1979); Wood v. Metro. Atlanta Girls' Club, 141 Ga. App. 473 ( 233 S.E.2d 862) (1977). Judgment affirmed. Birdsong, C. J., Deen, P. J., McMurray, P. J., Carley, Sognier, and Pope, JJ., concur.
The record in the trial court was supplemented on appeal with depositions taken in another action between these parties. That which was not taken into account by the trial court in rendering its decision will not be reviewed on appeal. See Barnett Mtg. Trust Co. v. Woods Mill, Ltd., 151 Ga. App. 133 (4) ( 259 S.E.2d 140) (1979). Cf. Global Assoc. v. Pan American Communications, 163 Ga. App. 274 (1a) ( 293 S.E.2d 481) (1982).
Stern's Gallery, 176 Ga. App. at 593, 337 S.E.2d at 35; see Tackitt v. Prudential Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 1572, 1575 (11th Cir. 1985) (In a Georgia case, this court held that "ambiguous contracts are construed against their authors. . . ."); Jones v. Barnes, 170 Ga. App. 762, 765, 318 S.E.2d 164, 167 (1984) (Georgia courts are bound to construe uncertain or ambiguous contract language against the draftsman.); Barnett Mortgage Trust v. Woods Mill, Ltd., 151 Ga. App. 133, 134, 259 S.E.2d 140, 141 (1979) (The meaning of ambiguous contract language is construed against the preparer.); see also O.C.G.A. ยง 13-2-2(5) (Doubtful contract construction generally is construed most strongly against the party undertaking the obligation.).