Case ID: so2d_880/html/0427-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WOODALL, Justice. JOHNSTONE, Justice HARWOOD, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SMITH FAMILY COMPANIES, INC., d/b/a Smith Companies v. The HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC., and Tom Burns.
    1021291.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Oct. 24, 2003.
    Tony S. Hebson and Cathey E. Berardi of Hebson & Slate, Birmingham, for appellant.
    Thomas S. Hale and Scott W. Gosnell of Burgess & Hale, L.L.C., Birmingham, for appellees.
   WOODALL, Justice.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Ala. R.App. P. 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(E). See also Ala. R.App. P. 28(a)(10); Bruce v. Cole, 854 So.2d 47, 59 (Ala.2003); Birmingham Hockey Club v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 827 So.2d 73, 85 (Ala.2002); Smith v. Equifax Servs., Inc., 537 So.2d 463, 465 (Ala.1988); Hickman v. Winston County Hosp. Bd., 508 So.2d 237 (Ala.1987).

HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, and STUART, JJ., concur.

JOHNSTONE and HARWOOD, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.

JOHNSTONE, Justice

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant Burns on the plaintiffs tortious interference claim and in favor of defendant Home Depot on the plaintiffs promissory fraud claim. I respectfully dissent from affirming summary judgment in favor of Home Depot on the plaintiffs contract claim.

HARWOOD, Justice

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in affirming the summary judgment except insofar as it concerned the breach-of-contract claim. I conclude that, as to that claim, genuine issues of material fact exist with regard to whether one or the other of the two purchase-order memo-randa sent by Smith Family Companies, Inc., to Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., satisfied the requirement of § 7-2-201(2), Ala.Code 1975, when Home Depot gave no written notice of objection to the contents of those purchase-order memoranda.