Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): an exchange did not occur within the meaning of Section 30-36-4. We thus hold that a worthless check is given for something of value if the worthless check is issued as part of a contemporaneous transaction between the parties in which something of value is exchanged for the check, without regard to whether the thing of value is delivered before or after the worthless check is issued. We read Davis as limited to its facts, meaning situations in which something of value has previously been delivered to a person in reliance on that person’s credit, and the check is later tendered as partial payment on the credit account. We note that our interpretation is consistent with other jurisdictions’ interpretations of similar statutes. See Ledford v. State, 184 Ga.App. 556, 362 S.E.2d 133 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Gilley v. State, 182 Ga.App. 681, 356 S.E.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that delivery of possession of vehicle without delivery of certificate of title did not transfer ownership even though full payment had been received (B) holding that direct reliance was not shown where plaintiffs relied on third partys actions which were in turn undertaken in reliance on alleged misrepresentation by defendant (C) holding that a statement of conditional sale of goods can be filed with the state auditor before the delivery of goods where statute says the statement must be filed within ten days of delivery of goods (D) holding that delivery of citation is proper when delivered to a party capable of receiving it (E) holding that transaction was contemporaneous where something of value was given in reliance on delivery of check even though check was delivered one day after goods were received
Output (English): holding that direct reliance was not shown where plaintiffs relied on third partys actions which were in turn undertaken in reliance on alleged misrepresentation by defendant