Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

The Hammer Corporation v. Wade

278 Ga. App. 214 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
The Hammer Corporation v. Wade

10 Citing cases

  1. Healthy-IT, LLC v. Agrawal

    343 Ga. App. 660 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 10 times

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) The Hammer Corp. v. Wade, 278 Ga. App. 214, 218 (2), 628 S.E.2d 638 (2006). See also McLane, 269 Ga. at 609 (2), 503 S.E.2d 278 (exclusion of third party beneficiaries from the stranger doctrine has been expanded to cover those who benefit from the contract of others); Mabra, 316 Ga. App. at 65, 728 S.E.2d 737 ("Those who have a direct economic interest in or would benefit from a contract with which they are alleged to have interfered (even though not intended third-party beneficiaries of the contract) are not strangers to the contract[.

  2. Salahat v. Federal Deposit Insur

    298 Ga. App. 624 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 17 times
    Finding no mutual departure under OCGA § 13–4–4 where debtor ceased making payments after the Bank promised the debtor the “loan would be reworked”

    In interpreting a promissory note, we first decide whether the language is clear and unambiguous. Hammer Corp. v. Wade, 278 Ga. App. 214, 217 (1) ( 628 SE2d 638) (2006). If the language is unambiguous, we enforce the agreement according to its terms. Id. Section 7 does not state that the written notice of default provided by the Bank must include a demand for past due amounts or spell out Ram-Mar's right to cure within ten days.

  3. IH Riverdale, LLC v. McChesney Capital Partners, LLC

    292 Ga. App. 841 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that the prior ruling of this Court was law of the case because, inter alia, the arguments and evidence presented in the current and previous appeals were similar

    4 G Properties, LLC, supra.The Hammer Corp. v. Wade, 278 Ga. App. 214, 217 (1) ( 628 SE2d 638) (2006). (Footnote omitted.)

  4. Ben Farmer Realty v. Owens

    286 Ga. App. 678 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 3 times
    In Ben Farmer Realty, we held that the broker was entitled to a sales commission where the listing agreement was for a specific term and provided no right to terminate early, and the broker procured a ready, willing, and able purchaser.

    See id.Hammer Corp. v. Wade, 278 Ga. App. 214, 217 (1) ( 628 SE2d 638) (2006). See id.

  5. Toy Wright Ventures v. Radlo Foods

    635 S.E.2d 862 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    (Punctuation omitted.) Hammer Corp. v. Wade, 278 Ga. App. 214, 217 (1) ( 628 SE2d 638) (2006). See Krogh, supra at 37-38.

  6. 3455, LLC v. ND Properties, Inc.

    631 F. App'x 701 (11th Cir. 2015)   Cited 3 times

    [L]anguage is unambiguous if it is capable of only one reasonable interpretation." Hammer Corp. v. Wade, 628 S.E.2d 638, 641 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) (alteration in original) (citation and quotation marks omitted). When analyzing a disputed contract under the first step of Georgia's contract construction inquiry, if "the words in th[e] contract are plain and obvious, they must be given their literal meaning," and "unambiguous terms are taken in their plain, ordinary and popular sense as supplied by dictionaries."

  7. Stonegate Bank v. TD Bank, N.A.

    596 F. App'x 834 (11th Cir. 2015)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that when parties are both sophisticated entities and rule of interpretation against the drafter is "overcome by the strength" of other rules

    Language is ambiguous if it admits more than one reasonable interpretation. See Hammer Corp. v. Wade, 628 S.E.2d 638, 641 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) ("[L]anguage is unambiguous if it is capable of only one reasonable interpretation." (alteration in original) (quoting Caswell v. Anderson, 527 S.E.2d 582, 584 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000))); St. Charles Foods, Inc. v. Am.'s Favorite Chicken Co., 198 F.3d 815, 820 (11th Cir. 1999) ("A contract term is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation."

  8. Hickory Grove Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. v. Church Mut. Ins. Co.

    CIVIL ACTION No. 5:11-CV-407 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. Mar. 21, 2014)

    Alea London Ltd. V. Am. Home Servs., Inc., 638 F.3d 768, 773-74 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation omitted). See Hammer Corp. v. Wade, 278 Ga. App. 214, 217 (2006); see also O.C.G.A. § 13-2-2. O.C.G.A. § 13-2-1.

  9. Massih v. Jim Moran Associates, Inc.

    542 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (M.D. Ga. 2008)   Cited 7 times

    See id. "If a contract contains no ambiguity, the court enforces the agreement according to its clear terms, and the contract alone is looked to for its meaning." Hammer Corp. v. Wade, 278 Ga.App. 214, 217, 628 S.E.2d 638 (2006). If the contract is ambiguous, the court applies the rules of contract construction to resolve the ambiguity.

  10. Socar Inc. v. Regions Bank

    Civil Action File No. 1:05-CV-2269-TWT (N.D. Ga. Jun. 19, 2006)

    In Georgia, "language is unambiguous if it is capable of only one reasonable interpretation." See Hammer Corp. v. Wade, 628 S.E.2d 638, 641 (Ga.Ct.App. 2006). Although the Plaintiff's contention that stacked payees are joint payees might arguably be one reasonable interpretation, the conclusion that they are alternative payees is certainly also reasonable, as demonstrated by the holdings of the several other state courts discussed previously.