Stewart v. Gainesville Glass

42 Citing cases

  1. Decatur North Assoc. v. Builders Glass, Inc.

    180 Ga. App. 862 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 22 times
    Distinguishing Stewart v. GainesvilleGlass Co., Inc., 131 Ga. App. 747, 206 S.E.2d 857, aff'd by 233 Ga. 578, 212 S.E.2d 377, because it involved the sale of goods and was controlled by the provisions of the U.C.C. which limit privity

    It is this assignability exception to the privity of contract requirement that appellant invokes. In granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on its lack of privity defense, the trial court relied upon Stewart v. Gainesville Glass Co., 131 Ga. App. 747 ( 206 S.E.2d 857) (1974), aff'd 233 Ga. 578 ( 212 S.E.2d 377) (1975) and Tolar Constr. Co. v. GAF Corp., 154 Ga. App. 127 ( 267 S.E.2d 635) (1980), rev'd on other grounds 246 Ga. 411 ( 271 S.E.2d 811) (1980). Both of those cases involved warranties which were made in connection with the sale of goods.

  2. Miree v. United States

    242 Ga. 126 (Ga. 1978)   Cited 83 times
    In Miree v. United States, 242 Ga. 126, 249 S.E.2d 573 (1978), a jet crashed because it had ingested birds swarming over an airport and adjacent county garbage dump.

    The mere fact that he would benefit from performance of the agreement is not alone sufficient. Stewart v. Gainesville Glass Co., 131 Ga. App. 747, 752 ( 206 S.E.2d 857) (1974), affirmed 233 Ga. 578 ( 212 S.E.2d 377) (1975); McWhirter Material c. Co. v. Ga. Paper Stock Co., 118 Ga. App. 582, 583 (1) ( 164 S.E.2d 852) (1968)."

  3. Lee v. Mylan Inc.

    806 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (M.D. Ga. 2011)   Cited 21 times
    Finding privity where a drug manufacturer made “affirmations of fact or promises” to an ultimate consumer

    The Court recognizes that many Georgia cases can be read to suggest a no exception rule that an ultimate consumer cannot sue a manufacturer for breach of warranty when a middleman stands between the consumer and manufacturer. Generally, these cases can be traced to Stewart v. Gainesville Glass Co., Inc., 131 Ga.App. 747, 206 S.E.2d 857 (1974)—the first case to cite Schmitt, which clearly recognized that the ultimate consumer could, in limited circumstances, sue a manufacturer for breach of warranty. In Gainesville Glass, Judge Eberhardt, writing for the majority, cited Schmitt for the proposition that a subsequent consumer cannot recover on the warranty made to the initial consumer.

  4. Barnett v. Leiserv, Inc.

    968 F. Supp. 690 (N.D. Ga. 1997)   Cited 7 times

    Thus, reliance upon the warranties cannot extend beyond the first consumer or buyer or run with the product. See Stewart v. Gainesville Glass Co., Inc., 131 Ga. App. 747, 751-52, 206 S.E.2d 857 (1974), aff'd, 233 Ga. 578, 212 S.E.2d 377 (1975). In the case sub judice, the facts are undisputed that Plaintiff did not purchase the coffee at issue from Circus World.

  5. EMJ Corp. v. Laticrete International, Inc.

    934 F. Supp. 430 (M.D. Ga. 1996)   Cited 2 times
    Noting that this result "seems to eliminate the privity requirement almost entirely, since a purchaser could easily characterize any warranty as a part of the `bargain of sale' and thus establish privity with the manufacturer."

    In most American jurisdictions, as the Uniform Commercial Code became the standard guide for commercial transactions, the strict privity requirement disappeared, to be replaced by a broader application of warranties and an emphasis on consumer protection; however, the Georgia courts held on to the principle of privity even after Georgia adopted the U.C.C. in 1962. In Stewart v. Gainesville Glass Co., Inc., 131 Ga. App. 747, 206 S.E.2d 857 (1974), the Court of Appeals reluctantly ruled that under Georgia law a consumer who purchased windows from a local dealer could not enforce the manufacturer's ten year warranty because he had no privity with the manufacturer. Judge Evans explained the impact of the court's ruling in a special concurrence: "To make it very plain, if John Jones purchases goods from a hardware store, and the goods are completely worthless, he cannot go back on the manufacturer, simply because he did not purchase directly from the manufacturer. If some middleman sells the product to the purchaser, as is almost always the case, then the purchaser may as well forget express warranty or implied warranty by the manufacturer, because of a lack of privity."

  6. Morgan v. Mar-Bel Inc.

    614 F. Supp. 438 (N.D. Ga. 1985)   Cited 13 times

    Defendant also seeks partial summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim of implied warranty of merchantability asserting that the plaintiff does not have privity with Mar-Bel, Inc. to bring this claim against the defendant. Georgia law requires a showing of privity between the injured person and the seller of the product before a claim based upon an implied warranty may be brought. Stewart v. Gainesville Glass Co., Inc., 131 Ga. App. 747, 751-52, 206 S.E.2d 857 (1974), aff'd 233 Ga. 578, 212 S.E.2d 377 (1975). The Georgia courts have repeatedly held that privity does not extend to employees of the purchaser.

  7. Kaiser Aluminum Chemical v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.

    519 F. Supp. 60 (S.D. Ga. 1981)   Cited 19 times
    Reviewing cases and noting that "[t]he law of Georgia has not been anxious to find that parties not in privity can sue under the aegis of the third party beneficiary doctrine"

    Smith v. Williams, 117 Ga. 782, 45 S.E. 394 (1903). This language was reaffirmed in 1974 after Georgia's adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code. Stewart v. Gainesville Glass Co., 131 Ga. App. 747, 206 S.E.2d 857 (1974) aff'd, 233 Ga. 578, 212 S.E.2d 377 (1975). In Stewart, the purchaser of a house sued the manufacturer of insulating glass.

  8. Engineered Floors, LLC v. Beaulieu of Am., Inc. (In re Beaulieu Grp.)

    CASE NO. 17-41677-BEM (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Nov. 16, 2020)

    The Uniform Commercial Code ("U.C.C.") as adopted in Georgia governs warranties in contracts for the sale of goods. Decatur North Assoc., Ltd. v. Builders Glass, Inc., 180 Ga. App. 862, 863-64, 350 S.E.2d 795, 796-97 (1986) (distinguishing Stewart v. GainesvilleGlass Co., Inc., 131 Ga. App. 747, 206 S.E.2d 857 (1974), aff'd by 233 Ga. 578, 212 S.E.2d 377 (1975), because it involved the sale of goods and was controlled by the provisions of the U.C.C. which limit privity). With respect to express warranties, the "warranty runs only to the original purchaser except where it appears 'that both parties to the contract intended that a third person should be the beneficiary.'"

  9. Backus v. Chilivis

    236 Ga. 500 (Ga. 1976)   Cited 65 times
    Noting that “[t]he mere fact that [a third party] would benefit from performance of the agreement is not alone sufficient” to make him a third-party beneficiary of the agreement

    The mere fact that he would benefit from performance of the agreement is not alone sufficient. Stewart v. Gainesville Glass Co., 131 Ga. App. 747, 752 ( 206 S.E.2d 857) (1974), affirmed, 233 Ga. 578 ( 212 S.E.2d 377) (1975); McWhirter Material c. Co. v. Ga. Paper Stock Co., 118 Ga. App. 582, 583 (1) ( 164 S.E.2d 852) (1968). The contract in the instant case fails to meet this standard.

  10. Stewart v. Gainesville Glass Co.

    233 Ga. 578 (Ga. 1975)   Cited 34 times
    Stating that, with few exceptions, express warranty claims require privity

    DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1975. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 131 Ga. App. 747 ( 206 S.E.2d 857). Telford, Stewart Stephens, John E. Girardeau, Charles W. Stephens, for appellant.