Textile Rubber Chemical v. Thermo-Flex

42 Citing cases

  1. Accessory Overhaul Grp., Inc. v. Mesa Airlines, Inc.

    994 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (N.D. Ga. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    This evidence shows that AOG anticipatorily repudiated the parties' agreement. See Textile Rubber & Chem. Co. v. Thermo–Flex Techs., Inc., 301 Ga.App. 491, 687 S.E.2d 919, 922–23 (2009) (party freely admitted that it was unilaterally altering payment terms of contract and court construed this as an “absolute refusal to perform the contract as per its express material terms”); J & E Builders, Inc. v. RC Dev., Inc., 285 Ga.App. 457, 646 S.E.2d 299, 301 (2007) (party anticipatorily repudiated requirement that restrictive covenants be presented prior to closing where party's president had “in no uncertain terms” already refused to record covenants that would have been presented). AOG's statements about how much it valued its relationship with Mesa do not show an intent to honor the contract if the rate increase were not approved or that AOG was merely inviting Mesa to negotiate rates.

  2. Freebirds LLC v. Coca-Cola Company

    366 Ga. App. 443 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times
    In Tavistock Freebirds v. The CocaCola Co., 366 Ga.App. 443, 448-449 (1) (b) (883 S.E.2d 388) (2023), we concluded that a trial court does not have an obligation to sua sponte order a more definite statement in response to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

    Finally, promises as to future events generally cannot constitute fraud unless they are "made with a present intent not to perform or where the promisor knows that the future event will not take place." TechBios, Inc. v. Champagne , 301 Ga. App. 592, 594 (1) (a), 688 S.E.2d 378 (2009) (citation and punctuation omitted); accord Greenwald v. Odom , 314 Ga. App. 46, 52 (1), 723 S.E.2d 305 (2012) ("[M]ere opinions, predictions, and conjectures relating to future events cannot form the basis of a fraud claim.") (citation and punctuation omitted).

  3. Textile Rubber v. Thermo-Flex Tech

    308 Ga. App. 89 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 14 times
    Stating general rule but deciding the case on different grounds

    In the first appeal, we affirmed the trial court's decision that the plaintiff, Thermo-Flex Technologies, Inc., was entitled to $500,000 in damages as a matter of law, based upon the defendant Textile Rubber and Chemical Company, Inc.'s failure to make an installment payment, but remanded the case for a jury to decide additional damage claims. Textile Rubber and Chemical Co. v. Thermo-Flex Technologies, 301 Ga. App. 491 ( 687 SE2d 919) (2009). On remand, Thermo-Flex moved for summary judgment against Textile on its claim for statutory attorney fees based on the $500,000 damages awarded.

  4. Sheppard v. Bank of America

    542 F. App'x 789 (11th Cir. 2013)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that the FBPA does not apply to loan lending and servicing

    The breach which will form the basis for an anticipatory breach of contract action is an unqualified repudiation of the entire contract prior to the time for performance.Textile Rubber & Chem. Co., Inc. v. Thermo-Flex Technologies, Inc., 687 S.E.2d 919, 922 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (quotation omitted, emphasis in original). Accepting the allegations in the Complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to Sheppard, see Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 704 F.3d 882, 887 (11th Cir. 2013), she failed to state a plausible claim for anticipatory repudiation.

  5. Caradigm U.S. LLC v. Pruitthealth, Inc.

    253 F. Supp. 3d 1175 (N.D. Ga. 2017)   Cited 3 times

    The party must "absolutely" refuse to perform, and that refusal must be unqualified. Textile Rubber & Chem. Co. v. Thermo–Flex Techs., Inc., 301 Ga.App. 491, 494, 687 S.E.2d 919 (2009). In Clark, for example, a real estate buyer inspected the property the day before closing and noticed several conditions that would, if present at delivery, constitute breaches of the parties' contract. 179 Ga.App. at 437, 347 S.E.2d 4.

  6. Rosen v. Protective Life Ins. Co.

    817 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (N.D. Ga. 2011)   Cited 20 times
    Noting that "fraud" and "misrepresentation" require an intent to deceive the opposing party

    Damages Rosen has also failed to present any evidence that the alleged misrepresentation caused him any damage. Damages are an essential element of a claim for fraud. TechBios, 688 S.E.2d at 380. Rosen has only shown that a charge was temporarily placed on his credit card on March 4, 2008, and then refunded about twenty-two days later—on March 26, 2008. Rosen has not offered any evidence or argument showing how this temporary and brief charge to his credit card damaged him.

  7. Brimar Enters. v. Montgomery

    No. A24A0691 (Ga. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2024)

    Hairston deposed that he recognized the promissory note, but when asked what the sale proceeds provision meant, he pled the Fifth Amendment. (Punctuation omitted.) Textile Rubber & Chem. Co. v. Thermo-Flex Technologies, Inc., 301 Ga.App. 491, 495 (2) (687 S.E.2d 919) (2009).

  8. Paraison v. Nationstar Mortg.

    No. 21-13291 (11th Cir. Mar. 25, 2022)

    " TechBios, Inc. v. Champagne, 688 S.E.2d 378, 381 (Ga.Ct.App. 2009).

  9. Caradigm U.S. LLC v. PruittHealth, Inc.

    964 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2020)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Caradigm, a healthcare provider contracted with a software company to extract and organize patient data from the provider's various systems into one easily accessible location.

    See, e.g. , John K. Larkins, Georgia Contracts: Law and Litigation § 11:5 (2d ed. 2019) ("Where the contract is contingent on the occurrence of a future event, the repudiating party cannot claim the benefit of the contingency so as to avoid any claim of damages ." (emphasis added) (citing Textile Rubber & Chemical Co. v. Thermo-Flex Techs., Inc. , 301 Ga.App. 491, 687 S.E.2d 919 (2009) )). Accordingly, Pruitt couldn't claim that the project would never have reached First Productive Use as a shield to avoid damages because it repudiated the contract before Caradigm had a chance to perform.

  10. Atlantech Inc. v. Am. Panel Corp.

    743 F.3d 287 (1st Cir. 2014)   Cited 10 times
    Determining that the lost profit damages sought by the plaintiff were consequential because "they depend on contingencies beyond the terms of the contract itself"

    Proceeding under a theory of anticipatory repudiation, Atlantech argued that Defendants breached the Support Agreement by agreeing in January 2007 to discontinue sales to Atlantech, unless Atlantech provided them with a release from liability or they all consented. A claim for anticipatory repudiation requires an absolute and unqualified refusal to perform a contract. Textile Rubber & Chem. Co., v. Thermo–Flex Techs., Inc., 301 Ga.App. 491, 687 S.E.2d 919, 922 (2009). The district court found that “there [was] nothing absolute or unqualified about” the Defendants' refusal to perform under the contract, because they could have all consented to continue sales.