Fulton Nat. Bank v. Willis Denney Ford

24 Citing cases

  1. Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Hall

    144 B.R. 568 (S.D. Ga. 1992)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that delayed payment alone is insufficient consideration for a novation

    Demand notes do not fall under O.C.G.A. ยง 11-1-208 because, rather than the acceleration being dependent on whether the creditor believes in good faith that the prospect of performance is impaired, these instruments involve obligations whose very nature permits call at any time with or without reason. Fulton Nat'l Bank v. Willis Denney Ford, Inc., 154 Ga. App. 846, 269 S.E.2d 916 (1980). The only obligation of good faith that exists, then, is the general obligation of good faith that exists in every contract.

  2. Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Miller

    415 Mass. 482 (Mass. 1993)   Cited 9 times

    Sys., Inc., 485 So.2d 1336, 1340 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986); Fulton Nat'l Bank v. Willis Denney Ford, Inc., 154 Ga. App. 846, 848 (1980); Waller v. Maryland Nat'l Bank, 95 Md. App. 197, 216-217 (1993); Simon v. New Hampshire Sav. Bank, 112 N.H. 372, 375 (1972). Cf. Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Hall, 144 B.R. 568, 576 (S.D. Ga. 1992).

  3. Crosson v. Lancaster

    207 Ga. App. 404 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 17 times
    Finding claim governed by UCC because permitting an action in negligence despite the bank's showing that it met the statutory requirement of acting in good faith would thwart the purposes of the code

    " This means that "`what is not regulated by the contract should be done in such a way as to show good faith in the carrying out of what is expressed.' [Cit.]" Fulton Nat. Bank v. Willis Denney Ford, 154 Ga. App. 846, 848-849 ( 269 S.E.2d 916) (1980). The bank's action was covered by the contract, so OCGA ยง 11-1-203 is inapplicable.

  4. Check Reporting Services, Inc. v. Michigan National Bank-Lansing

    191 Mich. App. 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that where a bank did not waive its common-law right of setoff, it had right to use funds on deposit in customer's account as setoff against customer's obligations

    Courts in other states that have considered this issue have held that the obligation of good faith does not apply to demand instruments. Pavco Industries, Inc v First National Bank of Mobile, 534 So.2d 572 (Ala, 1988); Taggart Taggart Seed, Inc v First Tennessee Bank National Ass'n, 684 F. Supp. 230 (ED Ark, 1988), aff'd 881 F.2d 1080 (CA 8, 1989); Centerre Bank of Kansas City, NA v Distributors, Inc, 705 S.W.2d 42 (Mo App, 1985); Fulton National Bank v Willis Denney Ford, Inc, 154 Ga. App. 846; 269 S.E.2d 916 (1980). We agree with these courts that the obligation of good faith does not apply to demand instruments.

  5. Murphy v. First National Bank

    182 Ga. App. 788 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 8 times

    "`A note payable on demand is due immediately after delivery without further notice or demand. . . .' (Cit.) . . . Thus, the only `duty' under the U.C.C. on a holder of a demand instrument is to seek enforcement of the instrument which is on its face `immediately' due and payable within the applicable statute of limitation." Fulton Nat. Bank v. Willis Denney Ford, 154 Ga. App. 846, 849 ( 269 S.E.2d 916) (1980). See also Stone v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 159 Ga. App. 812 (2) ( 285 S.E.2d 207) (1981).

  6. Centerre Bank, Kansas City v. Distributors

    705 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 1 times

    The only cases cited or located which have discussed this contention have rejected it. In Fulton National Bank v. Willis Denney Ford, Inc., 154 Ga. App. 846, 269 S.E.2d 916 (1980), a car dealer filed suit against the bank seeking damages as a result of the bank terminating its credit relation with the dealer. The bank moved for summary judgment on the ground that in terminating the credit relation it was exercising its right as the holder of demand notes to call for payment and that such action could not be a viable basis for suit against it. The dealer opposed the banks motion on the ground that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the bank's good faith in calling the demand notes.

  7. Delta Diversified v. C. S. Nat. Bank

    171 Ga. App. 625 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that surety consented to subordination of collateral in advance where contract expressly provided that modification or release of principal's obligations would not discharge surety

    An accounts receivable factor is governed by its contractual agreements and, to the extent applicable, the provisions of Title 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. C C Financial v. Ross, 250 Ga. 832, 833 (1) ( 301 S.E.2d 262) (1983). Presupposing the applicability here of OCGA ยง 11-1-203, which "`in effect states that what is not regulated by the contract should be done in such a way as to show good faith in the carrying out of what is expressed'. . . [Cit.]," Fulton Nat. Bank v. Willis Denney Ford, 154 Ga. App. 846, 848-849 ( 269 S.E.2d 916) (1980), we see no issues of bad faith to submit to a jury. The trial court erred in denying CSNB summary judgment against cross-appellees' bad faith discharge defense.

  8. Stone v. First Nat. Bank

    159 Ga. App. 812 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 11 times
    In Stone, this Court said that "[t]he bare assertion or denial of the existence of an agency relationship is a statement of fact when made by one of the purported parties to the relationship[.]"

    Suit may be brought on demand paper without making any independent demand.' [Cit.] `A cause of action against a maker or an acceptor accrues in the case of a demand instrument upon its date or, if no date is stated, on the date of issue.' [Cit.] Thus, the only `duty' under the U.C.C. on a holder of a demand instrument is to seek enforcement of the instrument which is on its face `immediately' due and payable within the applicable statute of limitation." Fulton Nat. Bank v. Willis Denney Ford, 154 Ga. App. 846, 849 ( 269 S.E.2d 916) (1980). 3. Stone urges that it was error to deny his motion for directed verdict and to grant that of the Bank as to one of the demand notes in the amount of $97,000.

  9. Alan's of Atlanta, Inc. v. Minolta Corp.

    903 F.2d 1414 (11th Cir. 1990)   Cited 111 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not an independent term and cannot be breached apart from the terms of the contract

    Thus, AA sought to set the implied covenant up as an independent term in its contracts, subject to breach apart from any other. The district court rejected this attempt, and rightly so, for the "covenant" is not an independent contract term. Management Assistance, Inc. v. Computer Dimensions, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 666 (N.D. Ga. 1982), aff'd without opinion sub nom., Computer Dimensions, Inc. v. Basic Four, Inc., 747 F.2d 708 (11th Cir. 1984). It is a doctrine that modifies the meaning of all explicit terms in a contract, preventing a breach of those explicit terms de facto when performance is maintained de jure. See Smithloff v. Benson, 173 Ga. App. 870, 328 S.E.2d 759 (1985); Koets, Inc. v. Benveniste, 169 Ga. App. 352, 354, 312 S.E.2d 846 (1983) aff'd, 252 Ga. 520, 314 S.E.2d 912 (1984); Fulton Nat'l Bank v. Willis Denney Ford, Inc., 154 Ga. App. 846, 848-49, 269 S.E.2d 916 (1980); Carmichael v. Gonzalez, 107 Ga. App. 746, 131 S.E.2d 149 (1963). But it is not an undertaking that can be breached apart from those terms.

  10. Fink v. Hobbs

    1:02-CV-202-2 (WLS) (M.D. Ga. Sep. 28, 2005)   Cited 2 times

    With or without reason, a demand promissory note is due immediately. Fulton Nat. Bank v. Willis Denney Ford, Inc., 154 Ga.App. 846 (1980). Under O.C.G.A. ยง 11-3-412, "the issuer, or maker, of a note . . . is obliged to pay the instrument (I) according to its terms at the time it was issued or, if not issued, at the time it first came into possession of a holder."