Giallanza Realty, Inc. v. Rosebud Properties, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Krogh v. Pargar, LLC

    277 Ga. App. 35 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 21 times
    Noting that the fact that contract specified that some payments were nonrefundable implied that others were not

    Patel v. Burt Dev. Co., 261 Ga. App. 436, 439 (2) ( 582 SE2d 495) (2003). See also Giallanza Realty v. Rosebud Properties, 209 Ga. App. 571, 572 (2) ( 434 SE2d 130) (1993) (ruling that waiver of a financing contingency "would not provide a basis for the vendor to renege on the real estate sales contract to the detriment of the broker") (citation and punctuation omitted). Accordingly, the failure of the financing contingency did not void the entire contract or Prudential's right to claim a commission under the terms therein.

  2. Pacific Grove Holding v. Hardy

    243 Ga. App. 161 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 4 times

    Crook v. West, 196 Ga. App. 4, 5 ( 395 S.E.2d 260) (1990).Jackson Elec. Membership Corp. v. Ga. Power Co., 257 Ga. 772, 774 (1) ( 364 S.E.2d 556) (1988) (parties have implied duty to exercise good faith in accomplishing conditions precedent);Brack v. Brownlee, 246 Ga. 818, 819-820 ( 273 S.E.2d 390) (1980) (financing contingency); Giallanza Realty v. Rosebud Properties, 209 Ga. App. 571, 572 (2) ( 434 S.E.2d 130) (1993) (physical precedent only) (financing contingency). Neither party's motion or evidence addresses Pacific Grove's due diligence and good faith in seeking to accomplish the sewer service contingency.

  3. Cannon v. Street

    220 Ga. App. 212 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 14 times

    In our view, however, the partial grant of summary judgment is limited solely to defendant Michael Dewaine Cannon's liability for compensatory damages and does not purport to address punitive damages or adjudicate the liability, if any, of defendant Kenneth Joe Cannon. Consequently, there is nothing respecting punitive damages or defendant Kenneth Joe Cannon's liability for this Court to affirm or reverse. See, e.g., Giallanza Realty, Inc. v. Rosebud Properties, Inc., 209 Ga. App. 571, 572 (3) ( 434 S.E.2d 130) (physical precedent). These contentions are without merit.