Loughman v. Shine

5 Citing cases

  1. Spoon v. Herndon

    167 Ga. App. 794 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 11 times
    Noting that compliance with the Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act does not itself "affect the creation of the security interest, which remains a matter of contract between the parties."

    OCGA § 11-9-504 (4) (b) (Code Ann. § 109A-9-504). Where there is a conflict in the evidence as to the existence of an oral contract or as to its terms, the matter must be submitted to a jury for resolution. Frey v. Friendly Motors, Inc., 129 Ga. App. 636, 638 ( 200 S.E.2d 467); Loughman v. Shine, 129 Ga. App. 600 (2) ( 200 S.E.2d 326). "It is error to direct a verdict unless the evidence demands the particular verdict and fails to disclose any material issue for jury resolution." Gibbs v. Jim Wilson Chevrolet Co., 161 Ga. App. 171, 172 ( 288 S.E.2d 264); OCGA § 9-11-50 (a) (Code Ann. § 81A-150).

  2. Farris v. Pazol

    305 S.E.2d 472 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 9 times

    Since there was a conflict in the evidence as to the terms of the compensation agreement relating to the sale of the subject property, the issue should have been submitted to the jury. Loughman v. Shine, 129 Ga. App. 600 (2) ( 200 S.E.2d 326). The trial court read Miller v. Adams-Cates Co., 64 Ga. App. 858 ( 14 S.E.2d 220) as support for the directed verdict.

  3. Glen Restaurant, Inc. v. West

    296 S.E.2d 153 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 1 times

    Such a conflict should have been resolved by the jury. Loughman v. Shine, 129 Ga. App. 600 ( 200 S.E.2d 326) (1973). In addition there is a conflict in the evidence with regard to West's alleged abandonment of the contract.

  4. Georgia Power Co. v. Busbin

    145 Ga. App. 438 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 9 times
    In Georgia Power Co. v. Busbin, 145 Ga. App. 438, 244 S.E.2d 26 (1978), the court approved a jury instruction delivered by a trial court regarding the appropriateness of a conspiracy action against a defendant.

    A jury issue is presented where there is conflict as to what the specific terms of an oral contract are. Venable v. Block, 138 Ga. App. 215, 217 ( 225 S.E.2d 755); Loughman v. Shine, 129 Ga. App. 600 (3) ( 200 S.E.2d 326). An employee, generally, has a property right in his contract of employment (written or verbal, even if at the will of the employer) which may not be unlawfully interfered with by another.

  5. Venable v. Block

    138 Ga. App. 215 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 30 times
    In Venable, the jury had to choose between a one-third and one-fourth contingency fee and, in this case, the jury should have determined whether Harden's one percent was to be derived from the salvage or the warehouse value of the parts recovered or located.

    Where there is a conflict in the evidence as to what the specific terms of an oral contract are, including that of consideration, this is a question for the jury — all other essentials of a valid oral contract being present. Loughman v. Shine, 129 Ga. App. 600 (2) ( 200 S.E.2d 326); Gray v. Plummer, 87 Ga. App. 331, 333 ( 73 S.E.2d 569). We find all essentials of an oral contract to be present — with only the issue of whether there was agreement on the specific amount of consideration being in dispute.