Purvis v. Steve , 284 Ga. App. 116, 119 (1), 643 S.E.2d 380, 383 (2007) (punctuation omitted); accordHudson v. Swain , 282 Ga. App. 718, 721, 639 S.E.2d 319 (2006).George v. Hercules Real Est. Servs., Inc. , 339 Ga. App. 843, 845 (1) (a), 795 S.E.2d 81 (2016) (punctuation omitted); accordShadburn v. Whitlow , 243 Ga. App. 555, 556, 533 S.E.2d 765 (2000).George , 339 Ga. App. at 845 (1) (a), 795 S.E.2d 81 (punctuation omitted); accordShadburn , 243 Ga. App. at 556, 533 S.E.2d 765.

Finally, he testified that the VCHOA took reasonable measures to repair the gate relative to the situation they were confronted with in having to have the gate refabricated. See George v. Hercules Real Estate Svcs. , 339 Ga. App. 843, 846-847 (1) (a), 795 S.E.2d 81 (2016) (holding that because there was no evidence that increasing security would have affected the crime rate in general or the particular crime that injured the plaintiff, the evidence was insufficient to create a question of fact on whether the plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by any act or omission of the defendant); Walker v. Aderhold Properties , 303 Ga. App. 710, 714-715 (2), 694 S.E.2d 119 (2010) ("[A] plaintiff must do more than merely speculate as to whether enhanced security measures would have prevented an attack. This is so because guesses or speculation which raise merely a conjecture or possibility are not sufficient to create even an inference of fact for consideration on summary judgment.") (citation and punctuation omitted); Johns v. Housing Auth. , 297 Ga. App. 869, 871-872, 678 S.E.2d 571 (2009) (same).

An act may be considered grave in character if it renders the premises untenantable or unfit for the use and benefit of the tenant in accomplishing one or more of the substantial purposes of the lease. George v. Hercules Real Estate Svcs. , 339 Ga. App. 843, 852 (2) (b), 795 S.E.2d 81 (2016) (punctuation and footnote omitted). A tenant must show that her "use and enjoyment of the premises is not merely rendered ‘uncomfortable.’ "

We need not consider whether stare decisis nevertheless counsels us to retain Moore, because we are bound to follow the holdings of the United States Supreme Court on questions of federal law. See Lejeune v. McLaughlin, 296 Ga. 291, 298 (2), 766 S.E.2d 803 (2014) ; see also George v. Hercules Real Estate Services, 339 Ga. App. 843, 854-855 & n.3, 795 S.E.2d 81 (2016) (Peterson, J., concurring specially) (noting that stare decisis considerations do not allow courts to retain precedent that is inconsistent with binding decisions of a higher court).--------

Further, "[a] claim for punitive damages is derivative in nature and will not lie in the absence of a finding of compensatory damages on an underlying claim." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) George v. Hercules Real Estate Servs., 339 Ga.App. 843, 849 (1) (c) (795 S.E.2d 81) (2016). Because Harris's substantive claims fail, so does his claim for punitive damages.

And because the Plaintiffs’ punitive damages and attorney fees claims were derivative, the court did not err in dismissing those claims as well. See George v. Hercules Real Estate Svcs., Inc. , 339 Ga. App. 843, 849 (1) (c), 795 S.E.2d 81 (2016) ; Davis v. Johnson , 280 Ga. App. 318, 320-322, 634 S.E.2d 108 (2006). Judgment affirmed.

(Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original and supplied.) George v. Hercules Real Estate Svcs., Inc. , 339 Ga. App. 843, 850 (2) (a) (i), 795 S.E.2d 81 (2016). We need not address the continuing viability of Atlanta Botanical Garden and Jekyll Dev. Assocs. in regards to quiet enjoyment, however, because in the instant case, the balance of relevant indicia weighs most heavily on the side of a usufruct.

In other words, even if a defendant is found liable, an award of zero damages is authorized if the plaintiff fails to offer sufficiently specific or credible evidence to enable the calculation of damages with reasonable certainty. See, e.g., Hart v. Walker , 347 Ga. App. 582, 583-84 (1), 820 S.E.2d 206 (2018) (affirming trial court's award of zero damages, despite defendant's undisputed liability for wrongful eviction and other torts, where plaintiff had offered as evidence of damages only his own testimony and a single motel receipt); Jaraysi v. Sebastian , 318 Ga. App. 469, 477 (2), 733 S.E.2d 785 (2012), disapproved on other grounds by George v. Hercules Real Estate Serv., Inc. , 339 Ga. App. 843, 850 (2) (a) (ii), 795 S.E.2d 81 (2016) (affirming trial court's determination that, though landlord may have been entitled to recover repair costs, he had failed to present evidence showing the amount of those costs and was thus not entitled to any recovery); Crawford v. Dammann , 277 Ga. App. 442, 448-49 (3), 626 S.E.2d 632 (2006) (affirming trial court's award of zero damages, concluding that testimony about the "approximate" amount of fees wrongfully assessed was "insufficient to prove the amount of [damages] to the requisite degree of specificity"). (a) Cotto contends that the trial court applied "an erroneous legal standard" in assessing its damages claims, but nothing in the court's oral pronouncement or its summary written order indicates that it applied any standard other than the reasonable-degree-of-certainty test.

As such, pursuant to Smith , an issue of material fact exists as to whether that acceptance created a quasi-new agreement. See also Jaraysi v. Sebastian , 318 Ga. App. 469, 475-476 (1) (c), 733 S.E.2d 785 (2012) (disapproved of on other grounds by George v. Hercules Real Estate Svcs. , 339 Ga. App. 843, 851 (2) (a) (ii), 795 S.E.2d 81 (2016) ; Shalom Farms v. Columbus Bank & Trust , 169 Ga. App. 145, 147 (2), 312 S.E.2d 138 (1983) (physical precedent only) (whether a party's failure to make payments created the existence of a quasi-new agreement was a question for the jury); Baxter v. Ga. Fed. S & L. , 152 Ga. App. 753, 753-754 (1), 264 S.E.2d 242 (1979). Accordingly, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Atlanta Life on its breach of contract claim, and the ruling is reversed.

1. Appellants argue that the trial court erred by finding that they breached the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. Citing to George v. Hercules Real Estate Svcs., Inc., 339 Ga. App. 843, 795 S.E.2d 81 (2017), the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs did not prove their claim that the Defendants breached the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. It is true that in George, supra, this Court held that