THI RD DI VI SI ON

DI L LA RD, P. J.

, GOBEI L and HODGES, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

October 4, 2019



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 9 A1 48 3

. YASH SOL UT I O NS, LLC v

. NEW YORK GLOBAL

CONSULTANTS CORP.

D I LLA R D , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

Yas h So l u ti o n s , LL C a p p e a l s t h e tri al co u rt ’ s p art i al g ran t o f s u m m ary

ju d g m en t t o New Yo rk Gl ob al Co n s u l tan t s Co rp o rat i o n (“ NYG”) as t o it s b reach -o fco n tract cl ai m , as wel l as t h e d en i al o f i t s breach -o f-c o n t r a c t co u n t ercl ai m

— al l

rel at ed t o n o n-co m

p et e an d paym e n t c l a u s es

. Y as h al s o m ai n tai n s t h at

, at t h e

s u b s eq u en t ju ry t ri al

, t he j u ry erre d i n a wa rd i n g at t o rn ey fees to NYG fo r b ad fai th

an d s tu b b o rn l i t i g io u s n es s , an d t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n d en y i n g i t s m o t io n fo r a n ew

t ri al . Fo r t h e reas on s s et fo rt h i n f r a , we affi rm

. 1

1 In t h e p art i es ’ i n i t ial b ri efs

, t h ei r ci t at i o n s t o t h e rel ev an t t ri al t ran s cri p t s d id

n o t co rres p o n d t o t h e co rrect p o rt i o n s o f t h e ap p el l at e reco rd

. A nd gi v en t h e

v o l u m i no u s n at u re o f t h i s reco rd (i n c l u d i n g 16 v o lu m es an d 2 ,0 3 6 t o t al p ag es ), we i s su ed an o rd er i n s t ru ct i n g t h e p art i es t o s u b m it am en d ed b ri efs wi t h co rrect ed reco rdVi ewi n g t h e s u m m ary -ju d g m en t ev i d en ce i n t h e l i g h t m o st fav o rab l e t o Yas h

( i.e.

, t h e n o n m o v a n t ) an d t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed at t ri al i n t h e l i g ht m os t fav o rab l e

t o t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

, 2 t h e reco rd s h ows t h at NYG was fo rm ed in 2 0 07 t o p ro v i d e

an d tran scri p t ci t at i on s

. S

ee Ga. Ct

. Ap p

. R. 2 5 (a) (1 ) (req ui ri n g ap pel l an t s t o p ro v i d e

“ a s u cci nct an d accu rat e s t at em en t o f

. . . t h e m at eri al fact s rel ev an t t o t h e ap p eal

. .

. [an d ] a ci t at io n t o th e p art s of t h e reco rd o r t ran s cri pt es s en t i al t o a co ns i d erat i o n o f

t h e erro rs

. . .”); G a. Ct

. Ap p

. R. (c) (2 ) (i i i ) (“ Refere n c e t o t h e reco rd s h o u l d b e i n d i cat ed b y s p eci fi c v o l u m e o r p art of t h e reco rd an d b y (R-Pag e Nu m b er o f t h e Reco rd ). Referen ce t o t h e t ran scri p t s h o ul d b e i n d i cat ed b y s p eci fi c v o l u m e o r p art

o f t h e t ran s cri p t an d b y (T-Pag e Nu m b er of t h e Tran s cri p t .”)). NYG co m p l i ed wi th

t h i s o rd er, b u t Y a s h

— t h e p art y s eek i ng t o es tab l i s h erro rs b el o w

— fai l ed t o d o s o. Su ffi ce it t o s ay , i t i s n o t t h e fu n ct i o n o f t hi s Co u rt t o “ cu l l t h e reco rd on b eh al f o f a

p art y in s earch o f i n s t an ces o f erro r.” Gu i lf o r d v. Ma r ri o t t In t ’l

, In c

. , 2 9 6 Ga. Ap p. 5 0 3

, 5 04 (6 7 5 SE2 d 24 7 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (p u n ct u at i on o m i tt ed ); s ee D i xo n v. Met r o

. At l a n ta
Ra p id Tr an s it A u t h

., 2 4 2 Ga. Ap p

. 2 6 2

, 2 6 6 (4 ) (5 2 9 SE2 d 3 9 8 ) (2 00 0 ) (“ [A] p p el l at e ju d g es s h o u l d n o t b e ex p ect ed t o t ak e pi lg ri m ag es i n t o reco rd s i n s earch o f erro r wi t h o u t t h e co m

p as s o f ci t at io n and arg u m en t .” (p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed )). N ev ert h el es s , b ec a u s e t h e ev i d en ce n eces s ary t o res o l v e t h i s ap p eal i s rel at iv el y s t rai g h t fo rward

,

“ we ex erci s e ou r d i s cret i o n an d wi l l at t em p t (wh en p o s s i b l e) t o co n s i d er [t h e] ap p eal

o n t h e m eri t s b as ed o n o u r i n d ep en d en t rev i ew o f t h e reco rd an d wi t h t h e ai d o f t h e ci t at i o n s p ro v i d ed b y [NYG] .” Ca wt h o n v. S t a te

, 3 5 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 4 1, 7 4 3 (8 3 0 SE2 d

2 7 0 ) (2 01 9 ); s ee , e.g

. , Pa t ter so n v. S t a t e , 3 27 Ga. A p p

. 6 9 5

, 6 9 6 (1 ) (7 6 1 SE2 d 1 0 1 ) (2 0 1 4) (ex erci s i n g di s cret i o n t o ad d res s t h e m eri t s o f an ap p eal ev en t h o u g h

, i n t er al i a , th e ap p el l an t p ro v i d ed o nl y s p o rad i c reco rd ci t at i o ns an d n o ti n g th at t h e ap p elle e

p ro v id ed s u ffi ci en t ci tat i o n s t o t h e reco rd i n it s b ri e f )

. Bu t i f we h av e m i s s ed

s o m et h in g i n t h e reco rd o r m i s co n s t ru ed an arg um en t b ecau s e o f t he d efi ci en ci es in

Yas h’ s b ri ef, t he res p o ns i bi l i t y r e s t s w i th Yas h

. S ee, e.g

., Br it t ai n v. S ta t e , 3 2 9 Ga. Ap p . 6 8 9 , 6 9 3 (2 ) (7 6 6 SE2 d 1 0 6 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

2 S ee Ha r t r y v. Ro n Jo h ns o n Jr

. En t er s

. , In c ., 3 4 7 Ga. Ap p

. 5 5

, 5 6 n

. 4 (8 1 5

SE2 d 6 1 1 ) (2 0 18 ) (“ T o t h e ex t en t t h at t h e

. . . ap p eal i m p li cat es t h e ju ry verd i ct

, we

rev i ew t he reco rd t o d et erm i n e wh et h er t h ere i s an y ev i d en ce t o su p po rt t h e v erd i ct

.

2i n fo rm at i o n -t ech n o l og y co n s u lt i n g , s o ft ware d ev el o p m en t

, an d p ro ject -m an ag em en t

s erv i ces

. Si m i l arl y , Yas h i s an IT co n s u l t i n g an d bu s in es s -s o l u t i on s fi rm , “ p ro v i d i n g

b u s i n es s co n su l t i ng an d s t affi n g s o l u t i o n s t o it s [c] l i en t s t h r o u g h t h e pl acem en t o f

co n su l t an t s an d p ro fes s i o n al s .” Part i cu l arl y rel ev ant he r e , Y a sh an d NYG b o t h recru i t

an d s creen IT co n s u l t an t s t o p l ace w i t h o t h er co m p an i es

. To t h at en d

, o n J an u ary 3 1,

2 0 1 3

, NYG an d Yas h en t ered a M as t er Su p p l i er Ag reem en t (“ M SA”), u n d er wh i ch

NYG ag reed t o p ro v i de it s o wn IT co n s u l t an t s t o Yas h

, an d Yas h ag reed t o faci l i t at e

p l acem en t s fo r t h o se co n s u l t an ts wi t h i t s cl i en t s

. Un d er Art i cl e V o f t h e MSA, wh en

Yas h s u cces s fu l l y m ak es s u ch a p l acem en t

, N YG i s req u ired t o s ub m i t an i n v o i ce to

Yas h wi t h i n 4 5 d ay s , b ut Ya s h h a s n o o b l i g at io n to p ay t he i n v o i ce u nt i l i t fi rs t

recei v es p ay m en t fro m

i t s cl i en t fo r t he co n s u l t an t

. Yas h m ad e i t s p ro fi t s b y b i l l i n g

cl i en ts at a 2 5 p ercen t m ark u p ab o v e t h e am ou n t i t p ai d NYG.

To th e ex t en t t h at we rev i ew t h e s u m m ary ju dg m en t ord er, we co ns t ru e t h e ev i d en ce

m o st fav o rab l y t oward s t h e n o n m o v i n g p art y , wh o i s g i v en th e b en e f i t o f al l

reas on ab l e d o ub t s an d p o s s ib le i nferen ces

. A n d b ecau s e s u m m a r y j u d gm en t i s a

m at t er o f l a w , w e rev i ew t h e i s s u e d e n ov o .” (p u n ct u at i on an d ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ));

Ha mb l i n v. Ci t

y o f Al b a n y , 2 7 2 Ga. Ap p

. 2 4 6

, 2 4 6 (6 1 2 SE2 d 6 9 ) (2 00 5 ) (“ W e rev i ew

a t ri al co urt ’ s g ran t o f su m m ary ju d g m en t d e n ov o , c o n s t ru i n g t h e ev i den ce an d al l

reas on ab l e i n feren ces i n t h e l i gh t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e no n m o v in g p art y .”); S EC, In c.

v. Pu cket t

, 2 5 2 Ga. Ap p

. 4 2 2

, 4 2 2 (2 ) (5 5 5 SE2 d 1 9 8) (2 0 0 1 ) (“ [ W ] e v i ew t h e

ev i d en ce p res en t ed at tri al i n a li g h t m o s t fav orab l e t o t he ju ry ’ s v erd i ct an d

d et erm i n e wh et h er t h ere i s an y ev i d en ce t o s u p po rt t h at v erd i ct .”).

3Ad d it i on al l y , t h e p art i e s e x ecu t ed ad d en d um s g o v ern i n g NYG an d Yas h ’ s

arran g em en t fo r p l aci n g co n s ul t an t s wi th s p eci fi c Yas h cl ien t s , i n cl u d i n g o ne n am ed

EM C. 3 Th e E M C ad d en d u m ’s p ro v i s i o n s reg ard i n g Yas h ’ s p ay m en t of NYG’ s

i n v o i ces are s u b s t an ti al l y s im i l ar t o t h o s e s e t f o r t h i n t h e M SA. Bu t t h e EM C

ad d en d u m s p eci fi cal l y req u i res Yas h t o pay t h e am o u n t d u e o n an NYG i n v o i ce

wi t h i n fi v e d ay s o f recei vi n g p a ym e n t fro m E M C— i

. e. , t h e “ p ay -wh en -p ai d ”

p ro v is i o n

. Th e M SA a l s o i ncl u d es a n o n -co m p et e cl au s e (d et ai led i n

f r a ), wh i ch

es s en t i al l y p ro h ib i t s NYG fro m ren d eri ng t h e s am e o r si m i lar s erv ices t h at Yas h

p ro v id es u n d er t h e M SA t o it s cl i en t s t h at are th e su b j ect o f an ad d en d um t o t h e

M SA. Th i s p ro h ib i t i o n ap pl i es d u ri n g t h e t erm o f t h e M SA an d fo r o n e y ear fo l l o wi n g

i t s t erm i n at i o n

.

Du ri n g t h e t erm o f t h e M SA, Yas h pl aced two NYG co n s u l t an t s— Vi k ram

Rat h i an d Ben ed i ct Pi nt o— w i t h EM C fo r v ari o u s p ro ject s b et w een March 2 0 1 3 an d

Feb ru ary 2 0 1 5

. In it i al l y , Yas h p ai d NYG wi th i n fi v e day s o f recei v i n g p ay m en t s fro m

EM C i n co m

p li an ce wi t h t he M SA. Bu t in Oct o b er 2 0 1 4

, t h i n g s ch an g ed

. On e o f

Rat h i’ s p l acem en t s co n cl u d ed , an d Yas h was i n fo rm ed t h at i t co ul d fi nd h i m a n ew

3 Th e EM C ad d en d u m i n d i cat es t h at i t was “ d at ed ” No v em b er 1

, 2 0 11

, b u t was

“ m ad e an d en t ered ” o n J an u ary 3 1 , 2 0 1 3

.

4p l acem en t wi t h EM C. Rat h i d ecl i n ed t h i s EM C p l acem en t

, s t at i n g t h at “ h e d i d n ot

wan t o r h e wo u l d fi n d s o m e reas o n n o t to accep t t h at p art icu l ar o ffer.” An d s h o rt l y

t h ereaft er, Su m i t Bag g a— Yas h ’ s o p erat i o n s m an ag er— conta c t e d R a t hi ’ s acco u n t an t

an d d i sco v ered t h at h e h ad al read y b een pl aced wi t h EM C fo r a n ew p ro ject

. Th en ,

o n No vem

b er 1 4, 2 0 14

, Rat h i sen t Bag ga a m es sa g e u s i n g an E MC em ai l acco u n t

,

n o t i fy i n g Bag g a t h at h e was “ wo rk i n g o n a d i fferen t p r o j ect ” an d Bag g a s h o u ld

co n tact NYG wi t h an y

q u es t io ns

.

On Decem

b er 3 0

, 2 01 4

, aft er l earn i ng o f Rat h i ’ s n ew EM C pl acem en t

, Yas h ’ s

at t o rn ey s en t a l et t er t o NYG, al l eg i n g t hat NYG h ad b reach ed t h e M SA’ s n o n

co m p et e cl au s e b y

p laci n g Rat h i d i rect l y

wi t h EM C, rat h er t h an t h ro ug h Yas h . Th e

l et t er fu rt h er i ns t ru ct ed NYG t o t e r m i n at e Rat h i ’ s “ u nau t h o ri zed p lacem en t ” wi th

EM C an d ceas e an y an d al l di s cu s s i o n s wi t h E M C ab o u t p ro v i d i n g i t wi t h ad d i t i o n al

res o u rces

.

At f i r s t

, Bag g a t h o u g h t Rat h i ’ s p l acem en t was t he o n l y o n e t h at v io l at ed t h e

M SA, an d as a res u l t

, Yas h co n t i n u ed p l aci ng o th er NYG co n s u lt an t s i n co m p l i an ce

wi t h t h e t erm s o f t h e ag reem en t

. Bu t wh e n Yas h d i d n o t recei v e a res p o n s e t o i t s

Decem b er 2 0 1 4 let t er, i t refu s ed t o p ay an i n v o ice fro m NYG fo r Ya s h ’s p ri o r

p l acem en t o f Rat hi wi t h E M C fo r a p r o j e ct t h at o ccu rred i n A u g u s t 2 0 1 4

. Yas h

5d ecl i ned t o p ay t hi s i n v o ice, ev en t h o u g h i t h ad al read y recei v ed p ay m en t fro m EM C

fo r t h at p l acem en t

.

Th en , i n J an u ary 2 0 1 5, Pi n t o

— an o t h er NYG co n s u lt an t wh o h ad b een p l aced

o n E M C p ro

ject s b y Yas h —was n eari n g t h e en d o f hi s co n t ract fo r on e o f t h o s e

p l acem en t s , an d h e s en t an em ai l t o M u k es h M o l u g u —t he p res id en t o f NYG— an d

Yas h, gi v i n g t h em t wo week s ’ no t i ce t h at h e wo u ld be l eav i n g t h e p ro ject

. A cco rd i n g

t o M o l ug u , Pi n to t o l d NYG th at h e d i d n o t wan t to wo rk f o r Y a s h a n y

m o re d u e to

p h o n e c al l s t h at h e was recei v i n g fro m Bag g a. Bu t acco rd i n g t o Bag g a, Pi n to

i n fo rm ed Yas h t h at NYG was p res su ri n g h i m t o leav e t h e pro ject an d was n o t p ay i n g

h i m p ro p erl y

. Nev ert h el es s , Pi n t o s u b m i t t ed t h e n e ces s ary p ap erwo rk fo r Yas h to

p l ace h im wi th an o t h er co m p an y. A n d i t was o n l y s o m et i m e lat er t hat Yas h

d i s co v ered i t co u ld n o t p l ace Pi n t o w i t h t h at co m p an y b ecau s e o f t h e p art i cu l ar s k i l l s

req u i red

. Th en , af

t e r t h at “ s i tu at i on wen t s ou t h [,] ” Pi n t o t o l d Yas h t h at d i rect

p l acem en t s t h r o u g h N YG were av ai l ab l e t o h im

. At t h is p o i n t

, Bag g a d eci d ed to

i n v es t i g at e NYG’ s p lacem en t s o f i t s co n su l t an t s b ec a us e h e n ow k n ew t hat “ th ere was

m u ch m o re t han ju s t o n e [d i rect ] p l a cem en t g o i n g o n.” So

, o n Feb ru ary 1 6

, 2 0 1 5,

Yas h’ s at t o rn ey s en t a s eco n d l et t er to NYG, ad d res s i n g NYG’ s d i rect p lacem en t o f

Pi n t o wi t h EM C an d d em an d in g “ s tri ct c o m p l i an ce” wi t h t h e M SA. Sp eci fi cal l y ,

6Yas h co nt en d ed t h at

, u n der t h e n o n-co m p et e cl au se, NYG was un au t h o ri zed t o p l ace

Pi n t o d irect l y wi t h E M C

, a n d i n an y ev en t

, N YG m u s t no t i fy Y as h i f t h at si t u at i o n

o ccu rred

.

Al t h ou g h Yas h n o t i fi ed NYG t h at Pi n t o’ s recen t p l acem en t v i o lat ed t h e M SA,

i t d i d n o t i n fo rm NYG t h at i t wo u l d n o l o n g er p ay i t s i n v oi ces fo r an y o t h er p en d i n g

p l acem en t s

. Nev ert h el es s, Yas h ceas ed pay i n g NYG’ s in v o i ces fo r p ri o r p l acem en t s

o f Rat h i an d Pi n t o o n E M C p ro ject s , ev en t h o u gh E M C p ai d Y a s h f o r t h o s e

p l a c e m e n t s

. Acco rd i n g t o Bag g a, Y as h d i d n o t p ay th o s e i n v oi ces b ecau s e NYG

ci rcu m v en t ed Yas h i n p l aci ng Rat h i an d Pi n t o d i rect l y wi t h EM C. An d u n aware o f

Yas h’ s ap p aren t b el i ef t h at it was n o w ex em p t fro m co m

p l y i n g w i t h t h e M SA’ s p ay

wh en -p ai d p ro v i s i o n , NYG rep res en t at i v es m ad e p h o n e cal l s an d sen t em ai l s t o Yas h,

i n q u i ri n g as t o wh y i ts i n vo i ces were n o t b ei n g pai d

. Yas h i g n o r e d t ho s e en t reat i es

an d wen t rad i o s i l en t

.

On M arch 1 0

, 2 0 1 5

, aft er Yas h refu s ed t o d is cu s s i t s no n p ay m en t o f cert ai n

i n v o i ces , NYG fi l ed a c o m p lai n t

, as s ert i n g t w o b reach -o f-co n t ract cl ai m s b as ed o n

Yas h’ s fai l u re t o co m

p l y wi t h t h e M SA’ s p ay -wh en -p ai d pro v i si o n an d req u es t i n g

ex p en s es o f l i t i g at io n , i n cl u d i ng at t o rn ey fees

. Yas h fi l ed an an s wer, as s ert i n g s ev eral

affi rm at i v e d efen s es , as wel l as a b reach -o f-co n tract co u n tercl ai m bas ed o n NYG’ s

7al l eg ed breach o f t h e M SA’ s n on -co m p et e cl au s e. 4 Fo l l o wi n g d i s co v ery , NYG fi l ed

a m o ti o n fo r s u m

m ary ju d g m en t as t o al l of i t s cl ai m s an d Yas h ’ s co u nt ercl ai m

. Yas h

res p o n d ed

, fi l i n g a cro s s

- m o t i o n fo r p art i al s u m m ary ju d g m en t as t o i t s b reach -o fco n tract co u nt ercl ai m

.

Ul t i m at el y , o n M arch 7

, 2 0 1 8

, t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered a n o r d e r o n t h e p art i es ’

cro s s -m o t i o n s fo r s u m

m ary ju d g m en t

. Fi rs t

, th e co u rt gran t ed s um m ary ju d g m en t to

NYG o n i t s b reach -o f-co nt ract cl ai m s , fi n d i ng t h at n o t h i ng in t h e M SA, i n cl u d i n g t h e

n o n -co m p et e p ro v i si o n , ex cu s ed Yas h fro m i t s o bl i g at i o n t o p ay NYG’ s i nv o i ces fo r

p l acem en t s t hat h ad al read y o ccu rred an d fo r wh i ch Yas h had been p ai d

. Bu t t h e co u rt

d en ied NYG’ s cl ai m fo r ex p en s es o f l it i g at i o n an d at to rn ey fees un d er OCGA § 1 3 -6

-

1 1 , fi n d in g t h at t h ere were g en u i n e i s s u es o f m at eri al fact as t o wh et her Yas h act ed

i n b ad fai t h

. Nex t

, t h e co u rt d en i ed NYG’ s cl ai m fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t as t o Yas h ’ s

c o u n t ercl ai m , in w h ich it al l eg ed t h at NYG b reach ed t he no n -co m pet e res t ri ct i v e

co v e n an t

, fi n d i n g t h at t h e cl ai m was s u ffi ci en tl y p lead ed t o s u rv iv e s u m m ary

ju d g m en t

. Bu t t he co u rt al s o fo u n d t h at t h ere were ju ry i s s u es as t o wh et h er t h e

M SA’ s n on -co m

p et e cl au s e was en fo rceab l e. Ad d i t i o n al l y , th e co urt d et erm i n ed t h at

,

4 Y as h fi l ed ot h er co un t ercl ai m s , i n cl ud i n g frau d u l en t i n d u c e m en t an d

i n t en t i o n al i n t erferen ce wi t h a co n t ract

, b u t t h o se co u nt ercl ai m s are n ot at is s u e i n t h i s

ap p eal

.

8ev en i f i t was en fo rceab le, a ju ry m u s t al so d eci d e wh et h er Yas h’ s act io n s am o u n t ed

t o a wai v er o f t h e n o n -co m p et e p ro v i s i o n

.

T h e r e a f ter, t h e p art i es p ro ceed ed t o a ju ry t ri al as to t h e cl ai m s t h at s u rv i v e d

s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, an d u l t im at el y , t h e ju ry en t e r e d a v erd i ct i n fav o r o f NYG.

Sp eci fi cal l y , t he ju r y fo u n d t h at

, as to EM C, Yas h wai ved NYG’ s co m p li an ce wi th

t h e M SA’ s n o n -co m

p et e p r o v i s i o n an d t h at NYG was en ti t l ed t o $ 8 3 ,1 4 6 .2 0 in

at t o rn ey fees b ecau s e Y as h act ed i n bad fai t h, was s t u b b o r n l y l i t i g i ou s , o r cau s ed

u n n e ces s ary t ro u b l e an d ex p en s e. Y as h n o w ap p eal s bo t h th e su m m ary -ju d g m en t

o rd er an d t he ju ry

v erd i ct

.

1

. Th e Ju r

y Tr i a l

. 5 Yas h ch al l en g es t h e ju ry ’ s d et erm i nat i on t h at it wai v ed

en fo rcem en t o f t he M SA’ s n o n -co m p et e p ro v is io n , as wel l as t h e j u r y’ s award o f

at t o rn ey fees t o NYG. 6 W e wi l l ad d res s each o f t h es e cl ai m s i n t u rn

.

5 A l th o u g h Yas h p res en t s i ts arg u m en t s i n a d ifferen t o r d e r , w e ad d res s i t s cl ai m s o f erro r r e l a t e d t o t h e ju ry t ri al fi rs t b ecau s e “ [wh en ] a m o t i on fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t i s o v erru l ed o n an i s s u e an d t h e cas e p ro ceed s t o t ri al an d t he ev id en ce at

t h e tri al au t h o ri zes t h e v erd i ct (ju d g m en t ) o n t h at i s s u e, an y erro r i n ov erru l i n g t h e

m o ti o n fo r s u m

m ary j u d gm en t i s h arm l es s .” On e Bl u f f Dr i ve, LLC v. K.A.P., In c ., 3 3 0

Ga. A p p. 4 5

, 5 0 -5 1 (2 ) (7 6 6 SE2 d 5 0 8) (2 0 14 ) (p u n ct u at i on o m it t ed ); a cco r d Fi r s t
Fi n . In s . Co . v. Ma th is , 2 1 4 Ga. Ap p . 5 3 7, 5 3 8 (4 4 8 SE2 d 8 7 ) (1 9 9 4 ).

6 In l i s t i n g i ts cl ai m s o f erro r, Yas h p urp o rt s t o ch al l en g e th e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al

o f i t s m o t i on fo r a n e w t r i a l

, b u t i n t h e arg u m en t s ect i on o f th e bri ef, i t arg u es o n l y

t h at t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct reg ard i n g wai v er was u n s u p p o rt ed b y th e ev id en ce. Reg ard l es s ,

9W h en a ju ry ret u rn s a v erd i ct

, t h e v erd i ct m us t b e affi rm ed o n ap p eal i f “ t h ere

i s a n y e v i d en ce to s u p p o rt i t

, an d t h e ev i d en ce i s t o b e co n st ru ed in a l i g h t m o s t

fav o rab l e t o t h e p rev ai l i n g p a r t y wi t h ev ery p res u m p t i o n an d i n feren ce i n fav o r o f

s u s t a i n i n g t he v erd ict .” 7 An d we rev iew a d en i al o f a m o t io n fo r a n ew tri al

“ acco rd i n g t o t h i s s am e s t an d ard .” 8 Th erefo re, a ju ry v erd i ct

, “ aft er ap p ro val b y t h e

t ri al co u rt

, an d t h e ju d g m en t t h ereo n wi ll n o t b e d i s t u rb ed o n ap p eal i f s up p o rt ed by

an y ev i d en ce, i n t h e ab s en ce o f an y m at eri al erro r o f l a w .” 9 Wi t h t hi s st an d ard o f

rev i ew i n m i n d , we t u rn t o Yas h ’ s s p eci fi c cl ai m s o f erro r.

(a) Yas h fi rs t co n t en d s t h at t h e ju ry ’ s fi n d i n g i t wai v ed en fo rcem en t o f t h e n o n

co m p et e p ro v i s i on i n t h e M SA was u n su p p o rt ed b y t he ev i d en ce. W e d i s ag ree.

Th ro u g h o u t t hi s li t i g at i o n, Yas h es s en ti al l y arg u ed th at NYG v io l at ed t h e n o n

co m p et e cl au s e in t h e M SA b y p l aci n g i t s co n s u l t an ts d i rect ly wi th EM C i n s t ead o f

b o t h arg u m en t s es s en t ial l y ch al l en g e t h e su ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce to au t h o ri ze t h e ju ry ’ s v erd ict as t o wai v er, an d are, as ex p l ai n ed fu rt h er, s u b ject t o t h e s am e s t an d ard

o f rev i ew.

7 Gr een v. Key Cu s t o m Ho mes

, In c ., 3 0 2 Ga. A p p

. 8 00

, 8 0 2 (1 ) (6 9 2 SE2 d 5 6 ) (2 0 1 0) (p u n ct u at i on o m i t ted ).

8 Id

. (p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ).

9 Id

. at 8 0 2 -0 3 (1 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

10d o i n g s o ex cl u s i v el y t h ro u g h Yas h

, as req u ired u n d er t h e t erm s of t he M S A

. I n

rel ev an t p art , Art i cl e X (A) o f t h e M SA p ro v id es :

No n co m p et i t i o n

. [NYG] ag rees t h at d uri n g t h e t erm o f t h i s Ag reem en t

,

an d fo r a p eri o d of 1 -ye a r f o l l o w i ng term i n at i o n o f t h is Ag reem en t

,

reg ard l es s o f t h e reas o n , [NYG] wi ll n ei t her d i rect l y n o r in d i rect l y (i )

p r o vi d e ser vi ces t h at a re t h e s a me o r s imi la r t o t h o s e s er vi ces p r o vi d ed

u n d er t h i s Ag r eemen t o r a n

y S t a t emen t o

f W o rk f or a ny cl i en t o r cl ien t

s

t h a t [NY G] h a s s p eci f i ca l l y execu t ed a n

y Ad d en d u m to pr o vi de s er vi ces

t o s a i d cl i en t o r cl i en t

s ; ( i i ) c o m m

u n icat e wi t h t h o s e cl i en t s fo r th e

p u rp o s e o f p ro v i d i n g s erv i ces , u n l es s au t h o ri zed t o d o s o i n wri t in g b y
YASH; an d (i ii ) i nd u ce, s o l i ci t o r accep t wo rk fro m t h o s e s p eci fi c

cl i en t s

. If [NYG] d i s co v ers t h at it h as ei t h er u n i nt en t i o nal l y v i o l at ed an y

o f t h o s e res t ri ct io n s o r t h at an y cl i en t o r cl i en t s t h at h av e co n t act ed

[ N Y G ] di rect l y fo r t h e p u rp o s es o f p ro v id i n g s am e o r s i m i l ar s erv i ces
[NYG] pro vi d ed u n d er t h i s ag reem en t

, [NYG] wi l l i m m ed i at el y n o ti fy

YASH o f th i s co n t act an d refrai n fro m an y fu rt h er co n tact wi t h Y A SH’ S

cl i en t an d d ecl i n e t o p ro v i d e an y s erv i ces t o t h e cl i en t

. 1 0

Acco rd in g t o Yas h

, b ecau s e NYG ex ecu ted an ad den d u m s p eci fi cal l y g o v ern i n g

Yas h’ s p l acem en t o f NYG co n s u l tan t s wi t h EM C, NYG b reach ed th i s no n -co m p et e

p ro v is i o n b y p l aci n g Pi n to an d Rat h i d irect l y wi t h EM C, i n s t ead o f th ro u gh Yas h.

Yas h fu rt h er co n t en d s t h at t h i s al l eg ed breach ex em p ted i t fro m co m

p ly i ng wi t h t h e

1 0 (Em p has is s u pp l i ed ).

11p ay -wh en -p ai d p ro v i s i o n o f t h e M SA— i .e. p ay i n g NYG’ s i nv o i ces w i t hi n fi v e day s

o f recei v in g p ay m en t fro m EM C— as t o t h os e co n s u l t an ts

.

At t h e s u m

m ary -ju d gm en t s t ag e, a s to Yas h’ s b reach -o f-co n t ract co u n t ercl ai m ,

t h e t ri al co u rt co n cl u d ed t h a t t h ere were g en u i n e i s s ues o f m at eri al fact reg ard i n g

wh et h er t h e n o n -co m

pet e pro vi s i o n was en fo rceab le, an d i f s o , wh et h er Yas h wai v ed

en fo rcem en t o f t h e p ro v i s i o n b y “ co n t i n uing t o o p erat e un d er t h e M SA” aft er l earn i n g

o f t h e di rect p l acem en t s

. A s a res u l t

, t h o s e i s s u es p ro ceed ed t o t ri al

, an d u lt i m at el y ,

t h e ju ry fo u n d t h at “ by a prep o n d eran ce o f th e ev i d en ce[,]

. . . [Yas h ] wai v ed [NYG’ s ]

co m p l ian ce wi t h t he [n o n -co m p et e cl au s e] i n t h e [M SA] wi th [NYG]

. ”

As we h av e p rev i o u s l y e x pl ai n ed

, wai v er o f a co n t ract p ro v i s i o n m ay b e

“ ex p r e s s , o r m ay b e i nferred fro m act i o n s , co nd u ct

, or a co u rs e o f d eal in g .” 1 1 Pu t

an o th er way , wai v er o f a co n t ract ri gh t m ay “ res u l t fro m a p art y ’ s co n d uct s h o wi n g

1 1 B o l l ea v. W

o r l d Ch a mp i o ns h i

p W res t l i n g

, In c ., 2 7 1 Ga. A p p

. 5 5 5

, 5 6 2 ( 5 ) (6 1 0 SE2 d 9 2) (2 0 0 5) (p u nct u at i o n o m it t ed ); a cco r d Smi t h v. Go r d o n , 2 6 6 G a. Ap p. 8 1 4

, 8 1 5 (1 ) (a) (5 9 8 SE2 d 9 2 ) (2 0 0 4 ); s ee Ken n es t o n e H o s p

. v. Ho p so n , 2 7 3 Ga

. 1 4 5

, 1 4 8 (5 3 8 SE2 d 7 4 2) (2 0 0 0 ) (“ W ai v er i s t h e v o l u n t ary rel i n q u i s h m en t o f a k n o wn ri gh t an d m ay b e es t ab l i s hed b y ex p res s s tat em en t s o r i m p l i ed b y co n d u ct

. A n i m

p l i ed

wai v er i s o ne s h o wn by a part y ’ s d eci s i v e, u n eq ui v o cal co n d u ct reas o n ab l y i n ferri n g

t h e i n ten t t o wai ve.” (p u n ct u at i o n an d fo o t no t es o m i t t ed )); V ra t s i n as Co n s tr

. Co

. v. Tr i a d Dr ywa l l

, LLC

, 3 2 1 Ga. A p p

. 4 5 1

, 4 5 3 -5 4 (1 ) (7 3 9 SE2 d 4 9 3 ) (2 0 13 ) (“ [A]

p art y t o a co n t ract m ay w ai v e a co n t ract u al ri g h t

, an d

. . . an y s u ch wai v er m ay b e

acco m pl i s h ed ex p res s ly

o r i m p l i ci t l y t h ro u g h t h e p art y ’ s co n d u ct .”).

12h i s el ect i on b et ween t wo i nco n s i s t en t ri g h t s .” 1 2 Sp eci fi cal ly

, act in g o n t h e th eo ry t h at

t h e c o n t ract is s t i l l i n fo rce, “ as b y co n t in u i n g p erfo rm an ce, d em an d i ng or u rg i n g

fu rt her p erfo rm an ce, o r p erm i t t i n g t h e o th er p art y t o p e r f o r m an d accep t i n g o r

r e t a i n i n g b en efi t s u n d er t h e co n t ract

, m ay co n s t it u t e wai v er o f a b reach .” 1 3

Nev ert h el es s , al l of t h e at t en d an t fact s , t ak en t og et h er, m u s t “ am o u n t to an i nt en t i o n al

1 2 Bo l l ea , 2 7 1 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 6 2 (5 ) (p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco rd S mi t h

, 2 6 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 81 5 (1 ) (a); s ee Ch a pp l e v. Hi gh t

, 1 6 1 Ga. 6 2 9

, 6 3 1 (1 ) (1 3 1 SE 5 0 5 ) (1 9 2 6 ) (“ Th e l aw co m

p el s an el ect i on b et ween i nco n s i s t en t rem ed i es

. W ai v er b y e l e ct i o n

res u l ts wh ere a ch o ice i s ex erci s ed b et ween in co n si s t en t rem ed i es ; an d i n s u ch a cas e

a n y d eci s i v e act of affi rm an ce o r d i s affi rm an ce, do n e wi t h k n owl ed g e of t h e fact s , d et erm i n es t h e ri g h ts of t h e p art i es o n ce an d fo r al l .” (c i t a t i o n s o m i t t ed )). Cf

. S u n Tr u s t Ba nk v. Li l l is t on , 3 0 2 Ga. 8 4 0, 84 0 (8 0 9 SE2 d 8 1 9) (2 0 1 8 ) (“ Des p i t e t h e

s t ro n g pres u m

p t i o n ag ai ns t t h e wai v er o f t h e r i g h t t o arb i t rat e, s u ch a ri g h t m ay b e wai v ed b y a p art y wh o act s in co n s i s t en t l y wi t h t hat ri g h t an d

, i n so d oi n g, p reju d i ces

t h e o t h er p art y

t o t h e co n tract .”).

1 3 B o l l ea , 2 7 1 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 6 2 (5 ) (p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco r d W a l l a ce v. W a l la ce , 3 4 5 Ga. Ap p

. 7 6 4

, 7 7 0 (1 ) (c) (8 1 3 SE2 d 42 8 ) (2 0 1 8); Gr ea t er Ga

. Li f e In s

. Co

. v. Ea s o n , 2 9 2 Ga. Ap p

. 68 2

, 6 8 7 (2 ) (6 6 5 SE2 d 7 2 5) (2 0 0 8 ); S mi t h

, 2 6 6 Ga. Ap p.

at 8 1 5 (1 ) (a).

13rel i n qu i sh m en t o f a k n o wn ri gh t, i n o rd er t h at a w ai v er m ay ex i s t .” 1 4 Bu t s ig n ifi can t l y ,

wh en t h e ev id en ce i s i n co n fl i ct

, “ t h e i s s u e o f w ai v er m u s t b e d eci d ed b y t h e ju ry .” 1 5

Here, Yas h p res en t ed ev i d en c e t h a t

— aft er i t fi rs t d is co v ered th e d i rect

p l acem en t s i n No v em

b er 2 0 1 4

— i t s at t o rn ey s en t t wo l et t er s to N YG (o n e in

Decem b er 2 0 1 4 an d t h e o t h er i n Feb ru ary 2 01 5 ), as sert i n g t h a t N Y G b reach ed t h e

M SA’ s n o n -co m

p et e p ro v i si o n an d d em an d i ng s t ri ct p erfo rm an ce wi t h t he t erm s o f

t h e ag reem en t

. An d wh i l e t he l et t ers d em o ns t rat ed i ts i n ten t to en fo rce t h e n o n

co m p e t e p ro v i s i o n , Yas h n ev er p u rs u ed th e co nt ract u al rem ed i es av ai l ab l e fo r i t to

d o s o. In d eed

, as d i s cu s s ed in Di v i s i on 2 (b ) in f r a , t h e M SA ex p res s l y p ro v id es t h at

,

1 4 Bo l l ea , 2 7 1 G a. A p p. at 5 6 2 (5 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco r d W a ll a ce , 3 4 5

G a. Ap p

. at 7 7 0 (1 ) (c); S mi t h

, 2 6 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 1 5 (1 ) (a); s ee Un if i ed Go v’t o

f

At h en s -Cl a r

ke Ct y. v. S t i l es Ap a r t men t

s

, In c ., 2 9 5 Ga. 8 29

, 8 3 4 (4 ) (7 6 4 SE2 d 4 0 3 ) (2 0 1 4) (“ W h ere t h e on l y ev i d en c e o f a n i n t en ti o n t o wai ve i s wh at a p art y d o es o r fo rb ears t o d o , t here is n o wai v er u n les s h is act s o r o m is s i o n s t o act are so m an i fes t l y

co n si s t en t wi t h an i n t en t t o rel i n q u i s h a t h en -k n own p art i cu l ar ri g h t o r b en efi t t h at n o

o t h er reas o n ab l e ex pl an at i o n of h i s c o n d u c t i s p o s s i b l e.” (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ));

Fl o yd v. Fl o yd

, 2 9 1 Ga. 6 05

, 60 6 (1 ) n .3 (7 3 2 SE2 d 2 5 8 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (s am e); MNM 5

, In c.

v. An d er s o n / 64 3 8 Ne. Pa r t n e r

s

, L t d

. , 2 1 5 Ga. Ap p. 40 7

, 4 1 0 (2 ) (4 5 1 SE2 d 7 8 8 ) (1 9 9 4) (s am e).

1 5 Br ewer v. Ro

ya l In s

. Co

. o

f Am.

, 2 8 3 Ga. Ap p

. 3 1 2, 3 16 (6 4 1 SE2 d 2 9 1 ) ( 2 0 0 7 ); a cco r d Y

o u n g v. Oa k Lea

f Bu i l d er s, In c ., 2 77 Ga. Ap p

. 2 7 4

, 2 7 7 (1 ) (6 2 6

SE2 d 2 4 0 ) (2 0 0 6 ); s ee D el a cr u z v. S t a t e , 2 8 0 Ga. 3 9 2, 3 9 7 (3 ) (6 2 7 SE2 d 5 7 9 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (“ Res o l v i n g ev i d en t i ary co n fl i ct s an d i n co n s i s t e n ci es , an d as s es s i n g wi t n es s cred i b i l i t y , are t h e p ro v i n ce o f t h e fact fi n d er, n o t t h i s Co u rt .” (p un ct u at io n o m i t t ed )).

14i f NYG b reach ed t h e n o n -co m p et e p ro v i s i o n , Y as h was en t it l ed t o p urs u e an y rem ed y

i n l aw o r i n eq u i t y , i n cl u d i n g i n j u n ct i v e rel i ef. Bu t Yas h n ev er s o u g h t i n ju n ct i v e rel i ef

o r s u ed NYG fo r d am ag es

.

In s t ead

, Yas h co n t i n ued p erfo rm i n g u nd er t h e M SA an d en co u rag i n g NYG to

d o t h e s am e fo r q u i t e s o m e t i m e aft er l earn i n g o f i t s al l eg ed b reach

. In d eed

, ev en aft er

Yas h’ s at t o rn ey s e n t t he afo rem en ti o ned l et t ers t o NYG, Yas h co n t i n u ed s en d i n g

em ai l s t o NYG, as k i ng it t o s u b m i t can d i dat es t o Yas h fo r p l a cem en t

. A nd at t ri al

,

Yas h’ s p res i d en t ad m i t t ed t h at

, at l eas t as o f Sep t em ber 2 0 1 6

, t wo y ears a

f t er l earn i n g

o f NYG’ s d irect p l acem en t s o f Rat hi an d Pi n t o wi t h EM C, “ [ Y a s h ] c o n t i n u e[d ] to

p ro m o t e p l acem en ts [fo r] wh i ch [NYG] co n s ul t an t s a re el ig i b l e t o su b m i t as a

res o u rce.” Si g ni fi can t l y , wh en ex p lai n i n g wh y i t co n t in u ed t o s eek NYG co ns u l t an t s

fo r new p l acem en ts

, Yas h ’ s p res i d en t t es t ifi ed t h at t h e M SA h a d n ever b een

t er mi n a ted

. Ad d i ti o nal l y , NYG’ s p res i d en t (M o lu g u ) t es t i fi ed th at Yas h was s t i l l

s eek i n g t o p l ace i t s co ns u lt an t s at t h e t i m e o f t ri al i n Ap ri l 2 0 1 8, s ev eral y ears aft er

d i s co v eri n g NYG’ s al l eg ed b reach o f t h e n on -co m p et e p ro v i s i o n i n 2 0 1 4

. Si m p l y p u t

,

15t h e fo reg oi n g act i on s b y Yas h

, i n cl ud i n g i t s ex p res s ad m i s s i o n at tri al t h at it b el i ev ed

t h e M SA was s t i ll i n fo rce, are ev i d en ce t h at s u p p o rt s t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct as t o wai v er. 1 6

Th e ju ry was p res en t ed wi t h co n fl i ct i n g ev id en ce, t h en , reg ard i ng wai v er. On

t h e o n e h an d

, t h e t wo l et t ers Y as h s en t t o NYG s h o rt ly aft er it d i s co v ered t he d i rect

p l acem en t s ev in ced it s i n ten t t o en fo rce t h e n on -co m p et e pro v is i on

. Bu t t h ere was

al s o si g n ifi can t ev i den ce of Yas h ’ s co nd u ct sp an n in g yea r s aft er it s en t t h o s e l et t ers

fro m wh i ch th e ju ry co u l d i n fer t h at i t i n t en d ed to co nt i n ue o perat in g un d er th e M SA

an d accep t i t s b en efi t s

. 1 7 An d b ecau s e t h ere was co n f l i c ti n g ev i den ce reg ard i n g

1 6 S e e Wa l l ace , 3 45 G a. Ap p

. at 7 7 1 (1 ) (c) (“ Bas ed o n t h e ev i den ce i n t h e

reco rd

, we co n cl u d e t h at t h ere i s n o o t h er reas on ab l e e x p l a nat i o n fo r t h e p art i es ’

i n act io n b u t to in fer t h at t h e p art i es ’ m u tu al fai l u re t o ad h ere t o t h e 6 0-d ay rep u rch as e

an d s al e t erm i n t h e Ag reem en t was a wai v er o f t h e breach an d a d eci s i on t o t r ea t t h e

r ema i n i ng co n tr a ct

a s i n f o rce

. ” (em

p h as i s s u p p l i ed )); Y

ou n g , 2 7 7 Ga. Ap p . at 2 7 7 (1 ) (ex p lai n i n g t h at act i ng o n a t h eo ry t h at t h e co n t ract i s s t i l l i n f o r ce , am o n g o t h er

t h i n g s , m ay co n st i t ut e w ai v er o f t h e b reach ); Bo l l ea , 27 1 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 6 2 (5 ) (s am e).

1 7 S ee Y o un g , 2 7 7 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 7 7 (1 ) (ex p l ai ni n g t h at “ co n t i n u i n g

p erfo rm an ce, dem an d i n g o r u rg i n g fu rt h er p erfo rm an ce, o r p erm it ti n g t h e o t h er p art y

t o p erfo rm a n d a c c e p t i ng o r r et a i n i n g b en ef it s u nd er th e co n tr a ct

, m ay co n s t i t u t e wai v er o f t h e b reach ” (p u n ct uat i o n o m i t ted ) (em p h as i s s u pp l i ed )); Bo l l e a , 2 7 1 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 6 2 (5 ) (s am e); Ecker d Co r p

. v. Al t er ma n Pr op s

. , Lt d

. , 26 4 Ga. Ap p. 7 2

, 7 5 (1 ) (5 89 SE2 d 6 60 ) (2 0 0 3 ) (s am e).

16wh et h er Yas h i n t en d ed t o wai v e en fo rcem en t of t h e n o n

- co m pet e p ro v i s i o n , 1 8 t h e

q u es ti o n o f wai v er was fo r t h e ju ry , an d n o t t h i s Co u rt , t o d eci d e. 1 9

1 8 S ee W a l l a ce , 34 5 G a. Ap p

. at 7 7 1 (1 ) (c) (co ncl u d i n g t h at a b u y -b ack

p ro v is i o n i n an em

p l o y m en t co nt ract w as wai v ed b y t h e p art i es wh en “ t h ere [was ] n o

o t h er r e a s o n a b l e ex pl an at i o n fo r t h e p art i es ’ i n act i o n b u t t o i nfer t h at th e p art i es ’

m u tu al fai l u re t o ad here t o t h e [p ro v i s i o n ] i n t h e Ag reem en t w as a w a i v e r o f t h e b reach an d a d eci s i on to t reat t he rem ai n in g co nt ract as in fo rce”); Vr a ts i na s Co ns t

. Co

. , 3 2 1 Ga. Ap p

. at 4 5 5 -5 6 (1 ) (h o l d i n g t hat t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n s u b m i t t i n g t h e i s su e o f wai v er t o t h e ju ry wh en , i n t er a l i a , t h e p art y wh o , as a m at t er of law, wai v ed

a p ay -i f-p ai d p ro v i s i o n “ co n t i n ued wo rk in g an d s ub m i t t ed s even ad d i t i o n al p ay m en t

ap p li cat io n s i n acco rd an ce wi t h t he p art i es ’ p ract i ce” a f t er th e p u rp o rt ed b reach );

Fo r syt h Ct y. v. W a t er s ca p e S er vs

., LLP, 3 0 3 Ga. Ap p

. 6 2 3

, 6 3 1-3 2 (2 ) (a) (6 9 4 SE2 d

1 0 2 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (h o l d i n g t h at ap p el l ee w a i v e d i t s ri g ht t o t erm i n at e a co ns t ru ct i o n

co n tract b as ed o n ap p el lan t ’ s fai l u re t o co m p ly wi t h cert ai n co n t ract u al o b li g at i on s

t h at i t was req u i red t o p erfo rm p r i o r t o co n s tru ct i on b ecau s e, d es p i t e k no wl ed g e o f

t h e al leg ed b reach

, ap p el l ee beg an an d co m p l et ed co n s t ru ct i o n o f t h e was t ewat e r

t reat m en t p l an t at i s s u e); N.Y

. Un d er wr i ter s In s

. Co

. v. No l es , 10 1 Ga. Ap p

. 9 2 2

, 9 2 6 (1 1 5 SE2 d 4 7 4 ) (1 9 60 ) (h o l d i n g t h at an i n s u ran ce co m p an y wai v ed a s w o rn -p ro o f-o fl o s s co n tract u al req u i rem en t wh en t h e co m p an y co n t i n uo u s l y n eg o t i at ed a set t l em en t

t h ro u g h t h e t i m e p eri od w it hi n wh i ch th e i n s u red m u st fi l e a s w o rn pro o f o f l o s s an d

m i s l ed t h e i n s u red in to b el i ev i n g t h at n o o t h er req u irem en t was neces s ary t o a

s et t l em en t ).

1 9 S ee Hi l l v. S t a t e , 2 84 Ga. 5 2 1 , 5 22 (1 ) (6 6 8 SE2 d 6 73 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (“ Res o l v i n g

ev i d en t i ary co nfl ict s an d i n co n s i s t en ci es , an d as s es s i n g wi t n es s cred i bi l i t y, are t h e

p ro v in ce o f t h e fact fi n d er, n o t t h i s Co u rt .” (p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed )); HA & W Fi n. Ad vi s o rs

, LLC v. Jo h n s o n , 3 3 6 Ga. Ap p

. 6 4 7

, 6 5 2 (1 ) (7 8 2 SE2 d 8 5 5 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (“ W h en

t h e ev i den ce i s i n co n fl i ct

, t h e i s su e of wai v er m u s t b e d eci d ed b y t h e ju r y

. ” (p u n ct u at i o n o m i tt ed )); AAF-McQu a y, In c. v. W

il l is

, 3 0 8 Ga. Ap p

. 20 3

, 2 1 7 (4 ) (a) (7 0 7 SE2 d 5 0 8 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (s am e); Ecker d Co r p ., 2 6 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 7 6 (1 ) (s am e); s u pr a

n o t e 1 5 & acco m

p an y i n g t ex t

.

17Nev ert h el es s , Y as h arg u es t h at t h e j u ry ’ s v erd i ct m u s t b e rev ers ed b ecau s e t h e

M SA co n t ai n s a “ n o -wai v er” p ro v i s i o n

. Sp eci fi cal l y , Art i cl e XIII (K ) o f t h e M SA

p ro v id es t h at “ [t ] h e fai l u re o f a p art y t o en fo rce t he p ro v is i on s o f t hi s Ag reem en t wi l l

n o t b e a wai v er o f a pro vi s io n o r ri g h t of s u ch p art y t h ereaft er t o en fo rce each a n d

ev ery p ro v i s i o n o f t h i s Ag reem en t .” Bu t Yas h co n ced es t h at

, u n d er Geo rg i a l aw, a n o

wai v er o r an t i -wai v er p ro v is i o n i n a co n tract m ay i t s el f b e wai ved

. 2 0 An d h e r e, t h e

t ri al co u rt i n s t r u ct ed t h e ju ry reg ard i ng t he n o -wai ver p ro v i s i o n, 2 1 an d t h e ju ry

o b v i o u s l y co ncl u d ed t h at Y as h ’ s co n d u ct o f co n t in u i n g t o o p erat e u n der t h e M SA’ s

t erm s an d en co u rag i n g NYG t o d o t h e s am e f o r y e a r s a f t er d i s co v eri n g t h e al l eg ed

b reach was s i g n i fi can t en o u gh t o co n s t i t u t e a wai v er o f t h at p ro v i s io n as wel l

. 2 2

2 0 S ee Smi t h v. Gen er al Fi n

. Co rp

. o f G a

. , 2 4 3 Ga. 5 0 0

, 5 0 1 (2 5 5 SE2 d 1 4 ) (1 9 7 9) (“ [A] p ro v i s io n i n a co n t ract ag ai n st wai v er of co n t ract u al ri g h t s m ay i t s el f b e fo u n d b y t h e ju ry t o h av e b een wai v ed

. ”); J. E. M. En t er p r i s es

, In c. v. Ta co Pr o n t o , In c ., 1 4 5 Ga. Ap p

. 5 7 3

, 5 75 (3 ) (2 4 4 SE2 d 2 53 ) (1 9 7 8 ) (s am e); F ew v. Au t o mo b i l e Fi n ., In c ., 1 0 1 Ga. Ap p . 7 8 3 , 7 8 4 (1 1 5 SE2 d 1 9 6 ) (1 9 60 ) (s am e).

2 1 Th e t ri al co u rt i ns t ru ct ed t h e ju ry as f o l l o ws : “ A co nt ract u al an t i -wai v er cl au s e al l o ws a p art y t o req u i re s tri ct co m p l ian ce wi t h t h e co n t ract pro v i si o n g o i n g fo rward

, d es p i t e it s fai lu re t o d o s o p rev i o u s l y

. A p ro v i s i o n i n a co n t ract ag ai n s t
wai v er of co n t ract u al ri g ht s m ay b e wai v ed b y t h e s u b s eq u en t co n d u ct o f t h e p art i es .”

2 2 S ee S mi t h

, 24 3 Ga. at 5 0 0 (“ [E] v i d en ce o f th e b u y er’ s rep eat ed

, lat e, i rreg u l ar

p ay m en t s, wh i ch are accep ted b y t he s el l er, d oes creat e

. . . a ju ry q u es t i o n . . . as t o wh et h er th e an t i -wai v er pro vi s io n i n t h e lo an co n t ract w as i t s el f w ai v ed .”); Ba xt er v. Ga

. Fed

. S

a v. & Lo a n As s ’n

, 1 5 2 Ga. A p p

. 7 5 3

, 7 5 4 (1 ) (2 6 4 SE2 d 24 2 ) (1 9 7 9 )

18Si m

p l y p u t

, b ecau s e t h ere i s s om e ev i d en ce t o s up p o rt t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct as to wai v er,

i t m u s t b e affi rm ed

. 2 3

(b ) Yas h n ex t arg u es th at t h ere was a “ d eart h o f ev i d en ce” t o s u p p o rt t h e ju ry ’ s

award o f at t o rn ey fees u n d er OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1 . Th is cl ai m l i k ewi s e l ack s m eri t

.

In Geo rg ia, ex p en s es o f l i t i gat i o n an d at t o r n ey fees m ay b e award ed

, u n d er

OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1

, i f “ t h e fact -fi n d er d et erm i nes t h e d efen d an t h as act ed i n b ad fai t h,

h as been s t u b bo rn l y l i t i gi o u s , o r h as cau s ed t h e p l ai n t i f f u n n eces s ary t ro ub l e an d

ex p e n s e .” 2 4 An d q ues t i o n s co n cern i n g b ad fai t h

, s t u b b o rn l i ti g i o u sn es s , an d

(ci t i n g S mi th an d h o l d i ng t h at a b an k’ s accep t an ce o f lat e an d i rreg ul ar lo an p ay m en t s

creat ed a ju ry q u es ti o n “ as t o wh et h er t h e an t i -wai v er p ro v i s i o n i n t h e l o an co n t ract

was i t s el f w ai v ed ”); Cr a wf o r d v

. F i r s t Na t

. Ba n k o

f Ro me , 1 3 7 Ga. Ap p. 2 9 4

, 2 9 5 (2 2 3 SE2 d 4 8 8 ) (1 9 7 6 ) ( “ [ E] v en a co n t ract u al p ro v i s io n ag ai n s t w ai v er m ay b e wai v ed b y co n du ct . Th u s, t h e q u es t i o n o f wh et h er t h e co n d uct o f t h e p art i es cau s es

a wai v er o f co n t ract pro vi si o ns , an d a q u as i n ew ag reem en t effect ed

, o rd i n ari l y , i s a

q u es ti o n o

f f a ct f o r a j u r y .” (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ) (em ph as i s s u p p li ed )); s u

p r a n o t e 2 0.

2 3 S ee Sco t t v. Sco t t

, 24 3 Ga. 4 7 2

, 4 7 2 (2 5 4 S E 2 d 8 5 2 ) (1 97 9 ) (“ On e o f t h e

m o st b as i c ru l es o f ap p el l at e rev i ew i s t h at

, i f t h ere i s an y ev i d en ce t o s up p o rt t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct an d co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t

, t he j u d gm en t wi l l n o t b e d i st urb ed o n ap p eal .”);

s u p r a no t e 2

.

2 4 At la n t a Emer

g en cy S er vs

. v. Cl a r

k

, 3 2 8 G a. Ap p

. 9

, 1 3 (2 ) (7 6 1 SE2 d 4 3 7 ) (2 0 1 4) (p u nct u at io n o m i t t ed ); acco rd F o r s yt h Ct y. v. Ma r ti n , 2 7 9 Ga. 2 15

, 2 1 9 (2 ) (b ) ( 6 1 0 S E 2 d 5 1 2 ) (2 00 5 ); s ee OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1 (“ Th e ex p en s es o f l i t i g at i o n

g en eral l y s h al l n o t b e al l o wed as a part of t h e d am ag es ; b u t wh ere t h e p lai n t i ff h as

s p eci al l y p l ead ed an d h as m ad e [a] p ray er t h erefo r an d wh ere t h e d efen d an t h as act ed

i n b ad fai t h

, h as b een s tu b b o rn l y l i t i g i o u s , o r h as cau s ed t h e p l ai n t i ff u n n eces s ary

19u n n eces sary t ro u b l e an d ex p en s e u n d er OCGA § 13 -6 -1 1 are “ g en eral l y q u es t i o n s fo r

t h e ju ry t o d eci d e.” 2 5 In d eed

, an award of at t o rn ey fees un d er OCGA § 13 -6 -1 1 i s to

b e affi rm ed i f “ t h ere i s an y ev id en ce t o s up p o rt i t .” 2 6

In s u p p o rt o f i ts ch al len g e t o t h e at t o rn ey -fee award

, Yas h co n t en d s g en eral l y

t h at t h ere was n o ev i den ce i t act ed i n b ad fai t h

, was st ub b o rn l y l it i gi o u s , o r cau s ed

NYG u n n eces sary t ro u bl e an d ex p en s es

. Bu t t h en , Yas h p ro v id es a s t ri n g o f

p u rp ort ed fact u al al l eg at i o ns reg ard i ng i t s “ go o d fai t h ” effo r t s t o av o i d l i t i g at i o n

wi t h o u t a s in g l e ci t at i o n t o t h e reco rd t o s u p p o rt t h em

. A n d gi v en i ts fai l u re t o co m p l y

wi t h o u r ru l es , we m ay d ecl i n e t o co n s i d er t h i s cl ai m o f erro r. 2 7 In d eed

, we h av e

t ro u b l e an d ex p en s e, t he ju ry m ay al l o w t hem .”).

2 5 At l a n t a Emer

g en cy S er vs

., 3 2 8 G a. Ap p

. at 1 3 (2 ) ( p u n c t u at i on o m i t t ed );

a cco rd Ma r t i n , 2 7 9 Ga. at 2 1 9 (2 ) (b ).

2 6 At l a n t a Emer

g en cy S er vs

. , 3 2 8 G a. Ap p

. at 1 3 (2 ) (p u n c t u a t i o n o m i t t ed );

a cco rd Ci t

y o f G a i n e s vi l l e v

. W

a t er s , 2 5 8 Ga. Ap p

. 5 5 5, 5 5 9 (4 ) (5 7 4 SE2 d 6 3 8 ) (2 0 0 2); s ee L. S

. La n d Co

. v. Bu rn s , 2 7 5 Ga. 4 5 4

, 4 5 7 (3 ) (5 69 SE2 d 5 2 7 ) (2 0 0 2 ) ( “ T h e s t an d ard o f rev i ew of an award o f at to rn ey [ ] fees un d er OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1 i s wh et h er th ere i s an y ev i d en ce t o s u p p o rt t h e award

. Th e ap p el l at e co urt s can n ot

rev ers e su ch an award m erel y becau s e t h e ev i den ce w ou l d h av e s u pp o rt ed a v erd i ct
fo r t h e d efen d an t .” (p u n ct u at io n an d ci t at i o n o m i t t ed )).

2 7 S ee Ga. Ct

. Ap p

. R. 2 5 (2 ) (i ) (“ Each en u m erat ed erro r s h al l b e s u p p o rt ed in

t h e bri ef b y s p eci fi c referen ce t o t h e reco rd o r t ran scri p t. In t h e ab s en ce o f a s p eci fi c referen ce, th e Co u rt wi l l n o t sea r ch f o r a n d m a

y n o t co n si d

er t h a t en u mer a t i o n. ” (em p h as i s s u p p li ed )); su

p ra n o t e 1

.

20r ep ea t ed l

y cau ti o n ed l it i gan t s t h at “ [a] p p el l at e ju d g es s h o u ld n ot b e ex p ect ed t o t ak e

p i l g ri m ag es in t o reco rd s i n s earch o f erro r wi t h o u t th e co m p as s of c i t a t i o n an d

arg u m en t .” 2 8 To t h e co n trary

, t he b u rd en i s u p o n th e p art y al l eg i n g erro r t o “ s h o w i t

affi rm at i v el y i n t h e reco rd .” 2 9 Su ffi ce it t o s ay , Yas h h as fai led t o s at is fy t h is b u rd en

.

An d b e yo n d p r e s en t i n g i t s u n s u p p o rt ed v ers i o n o f t he fact s, Yas h m ak es n o

d i s cern ab l e l eg a l a r

g u men t c h al l en g i n g t h e p ro p ri et y o f t h e at t o rn ey -fee award fo r

t h i s Co u rt t o ad d res s

. 3 0

Fu rt herm o re, at t ri al

, NYG arg u ed t o t h e ju ry t h at t h e s p eci fi c b a d

- fai t h act

j u s t i fy i n g t h e at t o rn ey -fee award w as Yas h ’ s fai l u re t o pay i t s i n vo i ces wh e n t h e

2 8 Ben n et t v. Qu i ck

, 3 0 5 Ga. Ap p

. 4 1 5

, 4 1 6 (6 99 SE2 d 53 9 ) (2 0 1 0) (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ); a cco r d Vi ck v. To wer Pl a ce, L.P.

, 2 6 8 Ga. A p p

. 1 0 8

, 1 0 9 (2 ) ( 6 0 1 S E 2 d

3 4 8 ) (2 0 04 ); S

u l ej ma n v. Ma ri n el l o , 2 1 7 Ga. Ap p. 3 19

, 32 0 (1 ) (4 5 7 SE 2 d 2 5 1 ) (1 9 9 5); s ee Fl emi n g v. A d va n ced S t o r es Co

. , 3 0 1 Ga. A p p

. 7 3 4

, 7 3 5 (6 88 SE2 d 4 1 4 ) (2 0 0 9) (“ It i s n o t t h e fu n ct i on o f t h i s Co u rt t o cu l l t h e reco rd o n b eh al f o f a p art y i n

s earch o f i n s t an ces o f erro r.” (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )).

2 9 Ben n et t

, 3 05 Ga. A p p. at 4 1 6 (p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); Fl emi n g , 3 0 1 G a. Ap p.

at 7 3 5 ; Gu il

f o r d , 2 9 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 0 4

.

3 0 S ee Fa r mer v. Dep ’t o

f Co r r

. , 3 4 6 Ga. Ap p

. 3 8 7

, 3 9 4 (2 ) (8 1 6 SE2 d 3 7 6 ) (2 0 1 8) (“ [M ] ere co n cl u s ory s t at em en ts are no t t h e t y pe o f m ean i n g fu l arg u m en t

co n tem p l at ed b y o u r ru l es .” (p u n ct u at i on o m i t t ed )); Di xo n , 2 4 2 Ga. A p p

. at 2 6 6 (4 ) (“ R h et o ri c i s n o t a s u b st i t u t e fo r co g en t l eg al an al y s i s , wh i ch i s , at a m i n i m u m , a d i s cu s s i o n o f t h e ap p ro p ri at e l aw as ap pl i e d t o t h e rel ev an t fact s .” (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed )).

21M SA i n d i s pu t ab l y req u i red i t t o d o s o

. An d wh il e Yas h co n t en d s t h at it m ad e g o o d

f a i t h a t t em

p ts t o res ol v e i t s d i s p u t e wi t h NYG w i t ho u t th e n eed fo r l it i gat i o n , i t

co n ced es t hat i t di d n ot co m pl y wi t h t h e p ay -wh en -p ai d p ro v is io n o f t he M SA, wh i ch

was t h e bas i s fo r NYG i n i t i at i n g t h i s l i t i g at io n

. Th u s , i n ch al l en g i n g t h e at t orn ey -fee

award

, Y as h f

a i l s t o ad d res s t h e o n l y act o f b ad fai t h p res en t ed t o t h e ju ry

.

Reg ard les s , t h i s l i t i gat i o n w as i n i t i at ed b as ed o n Yas h ’ s fai l u re t o m ak e p ay m en t s to

NYG t h at i t was o b l i gat ed t o pay u n d er t h e M SA, an d as ex p l ai n ed in Di v i s i o n 2 (b ),

Yas h h ad n o ju s t i fi cat i o n, co n t ract u al o r o t h erwi s e, fo r fai li n g to d o s o

. Un d er t h es e

ci rcu m s t an ces , we can no t say t h at t h e ju ry ’ s at t o rn ey -fee award was no t s u pp o rt ed by

at l eas t s o m e ev i d en ce. 3 1

3 1 See Ma r t i n , 2 7 9 Ga. at 21 9 (2 ) (b ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h ere was ev i d en ce to

s u p p o rt a ju ry award of at t o rn ey fees u n d er O CGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1 wh en t h e ap p e l l e e

p res en t ed ev i d en c e t h a t t h e ap p el l an t h ad b een s t u b bo rn l y li t ig i ou s i n i t s effo rt s to
re-l i t ig at e an i s s u e t h at had b een res o l v ed i n a p ri o r p ro ceed i n g ); Sp r in g La ke Pr o p. Own er s As s ’n

, In c. v. P ea co ck

, 2 6 0 Ga. 8 0

, 81 (3 9 0 SE2 d 3 1) (1 9 90 ) (h o l d i n g t h at

t h ere was s o m e ev i d en ce t o s u p p o rt a ju ry award o f at to rn ey fees u n d er O CGA § 1 3

- 6 -1 1 wh en t h e ap p el l an t bu i l t a g at e t h at o b st ru ct ed t h e ap p el l ees ’ eas em en t an d “ [t ] h e fai l u re o f ap p el l an t to ad m i t i t s m i s t ak e an d rem o ve t h e ob s t ru ct i on acro s s ap p el l ees ’

eas em e n t s h owed st u b b orn l it i g i o u s n es s ”); In s

. In d u s. Co n s u l t a n t

s

, LLC v. Al

f o r d

, 2 9 4 Ga. Ap p

. 74 7

, 7 5 1 (6 ) (6 6 9 SE2 d 7 2 4 ) (2 0 08 ) (h o l di n g th at t h ere was ev i d en ce fro m wh i ch th e ju ry co ul d co n cl u d e t h e d efen d an t was s t u b b o rn l y l it i gi o u s an d act ed

i n bad fai t h b y “ refu s in g t o p ay [t h e p l ai n t i ff] m o n ies t o wh i ch h e w as l eg al l y en t i t l ed

t o u n d er t h e co n t ract ”); W h ea t En t er

s

., In c. v. Red i -Fl o o r

s

, In c ., 2 3 1 Ga. Ap p . 8 5 3,

8 5 7 (1 ) (c) (5 0 1 SE2 d 30 ) (1 9 9 8 ) (“ [D] efen d an t s can b e h el d l i ab l e fo r at t o rn ey fees

i f t h ey co m

m i t t ed t he b reach [o f co n t ract ] i n b ad fai t h

. ” (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )); s ee

222

. S

u mma r y Ju d g m en t

. In t wo cl ai m s o f erro r, Y as h arg u es t h at t he tri al co u rt

erred b y d en yi n g i t s um m ary ju d gm en t as t o i t s b reach -o f-co n t ract co u n t ercl ai m

ag a i n st N YG, an d g ran ti n g s u m m ary ju d g m en t t o NYG as to i t s d i rect b reach -o fco n tract cl ai m

ag ai n s t Yas h . W e d i s ag ree o n b o t h co u n t s.

On ap p ea l fro m t h e g ran t o r d en i al o f a m ot i o n fo r s u m m ary j u d gm en t

, we

rev i ew t h e ev i d en ce d

e n o vo , an d “ al l reas o n ab l e co n cl u s i o ns an d i n feren ces d rawn

fro m t he ev id en ce are co n st ru ed i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o r a b l e t o t h e n o nm o v an t .” 3 2

Su m m ary ju d g m en t i s ap p ro pri at e wh en “ th e m o vi n g p art y can s h o w t h at th ere i s n o

g en ui n e i s s u e of m at eri al fact an d t h at t h e m o v an t i s en t i t l ed to ju d g m en t as a m at t er

o f l aw.” 3 3 A n d a def

e n d a n t m eet s t h i s b u rd en wh en “ t he co u rt is s h o wn t h at t h e

d o cu m en t s , affi d av i t s , d ep os i ti on s [,] a nd othe r ev id en ce in t h e reco rd rev eal t h at t h ere

i s n o ev i d en ce s u ffi ci en t t o creat e a ju ry is su e o n at l eas t o n e es s en ti al el em en t o f t h e

a l s o Ci t y o f Li l b u r n v. As tr a G r

p

., In c ., 2 86 Ga. Ap p

. 5 6 8

, 5 70 (6 4 9 SE2 d 8 1 3 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (ex p l ai n i n g t h at q u es t i o n s o f b ad fai th an d st u b bo rn li t ig i o us n es s are g en eral l y

q u es ti o n s fo r t h e j u ry t o d eci d e an d an award o f at t o rn ey fees u nd er OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1

wi l l b e affi rm ed i f t h ere i s an y ev i d en ce t o s u p p o rt i t ).

3 2 McCa s ki l l v. Ca r i l l o , 2 6 3 Ga. Ap p . 8 90 , 8 9 0 (5 8 9 SE2 d 5 8 2 ) (2 0 0 3 ).

3 3 Kel l y v. Ha r ri s , 3 29 Ga. Ap p

. 7 52

, 7 5 3 (7 6 6 SE2 d 1 4 6 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ).

23p l ai n t i ff’ s cas e.” 3 4 Las tl y , i f t he m o v i n g p art y s at i s fi es t h i s b u rd en , “ t h e n o n m o v i n g

p art y can n o t res t o n i t s p l ead i n g s , b u t m u s t p o i n t t o s p eci fi c ev i d en ce g i v i n g ri s e t o

a t ri ab le is s u e.” 3 5 W i t h t h es e g u i d i n g p ri n ci p l es in m in d, we t u rn t o Yas h ’ s s p eci fi c

cl ai m s o f erro r.

(a) Y a s h ’s Br ea ch -o

f -Co n t r a ct Co u n ter cl a i m

. Y a s h f i rs t arg u es t h at t h e t ri al

c o u rt erred i n d en y i n g i ts m o t i o n fo r p art i al su m m ary ju dg m en t as t o i t s b r e a c h

- o f

co n tract co u n tercl ai m b ecau s e NYG v io l at ed t h e ex p res s t e rm s o f t h e M SA’ s n o n

co m p et e p ro v i s i on b y

p l aci n g i t s co n s u l t an t s d irect l y wi t h EM C.

Sp eci fi c a l l y , Yas h co n ten d s t h at NYG b reach ed A rt i cl e X o f t h e M SA by

p l aci ng Rat h i an d Pi n t o

— i t s o wn co n s ul t an t s

— d i rect l y wi t h E M C in s t ead o f m ak i n g

t h o s e p l a c e m en ts t h ro u g h Yas h i n co m p l i an ce w i t h t he t erm s o f t h e ag reem en t

. In

d en y i n g Yas h ’ s m o t i on fo r s u m m ary ju dg m en t as t o t h at cl ai m , th e t ri al co u rt fo u n d

t h at t h ere were ju ry q u es t i on s as t o t h e en fo rceab i l i t y o f t h is p ro v i s i o n u n d er OCGA

§ 1 3-8 -5 0 , an d t hat ev en i f t h i s p ro v i s i on was en fo rceab l e, th e ju ry wo u l d s t i l l n eed

t o d et erm i n e w h e t h er Yas h wai v ed i t s ri g h t t o en fo rce t h at pro v i si o n th ro u g h i t s

co n du ct

. As ex p l ai n ed i n Di v i s io n 1 (a) s up r a , at t h e cl o s e o f t ri al

, t h e ju ry ex p res s l y

3 4 Id

. (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

3 5 Id

. (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

24fo u n d t h at Yas h wai v ed en fo rcem en t o f t h e n o n -co m p e t e pro v is i on , an d t h ere was

s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce t o s u p p o r t t h at fi n d i n g

. An d t h e Su p rem e Co urt o f Geo rg i a h as

h el d t h at aft er v erd i ct an d j u d gm en t

, i t is “ t o o l at e t o r e v i e w a j u d gm en t den y i n g a

s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, fo r t h at ju d g m e n t b eco m es m o o t wh en t h e co urt rev i ews t h e

ev i d en ce u p o n t h e t ri al o f t h e cas e.” 3 6 Pu t an ot h er way , wh en a m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary

ju d g m en t i s “ o v erru l ed o n an i s s u e an d t h e cas e p ro ceed s t o t ri al an d th e ev i d en ce at

t h e t ri al au t h o ri zes t h e v erd i ct (ju d g m en t ) o n t hat i s s ue, an y erro r i n o v e r ru l i n g t h e

m o t i o n fo r s u m

m ary ju dg m en t i s h arm l es s .” 3 7 T h u s , reg ard l es s o f wh et h er NYG

b reach ed t h e M SA’ s n o n

- c o m p e t e cl au s e, t h e j u ry fo u nd th at Yas h wai v ed

en fo rcem en t o f t h at p ro v i si o n , ren d eri ng an y erro r b y t h e t ri al co u rt at t h e s u m m ary

ju d g m en t s t ag e h arm l es s

. 3 8

3 6 Mo o r e v. Mo o r e , 2 8 1 G a

. 8 1

, 8 5 (6 ) (6 35 SE2 d 10 7 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ); a cco rd On e Bl u

f f Dr i ve, LLC

, 3 3 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 0 (2 ); Cer ta in Un d er wr i t er s

a t L l o yd ’s o f Lo n do n v. Ru cker Co n s t

., In c ., 2 8 5 Ga. A p p

. 84 4

, 8 4 5 (1 ) (6 4 8 SE2 d

1 7 0 ) (2 0 0 7 ).

3 7 Lyn a s v. W

i l l i a ms , 2 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. 4 3 4

, 4 35 (1 ) (4 5 4 SE2 d 5 70 ) (1 9 9 5 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco r d Du n l a p v. D u n l a

p , 2 34 G a. 3 0 4

, 3 0 6 (3 ) (2 1 5 SE2 d

6 7 4 ) (1 9 7 5 ); Cer t a in Un d er wr i t er s a t Ll o yd ’s o f Lo n do n , 2 8 5 Ga. Ap p . at 8 4 5 (1 ).

3 8 S ee, e.g

. , A g

S o u t h F a r m C r ed i t

, ACA v. Go wen Ti mb er Co

., In c , 3 3 6 Ga. Ap p

. 5 8 1

, 5 8 6 (1 ) (7 84 SE2 d 9 13 ) (2 0 1 6) (h o l d i n g t h at t h e res o l u t i o n o f t h e

ap p el l an t ’ s m o t i o n fo r su m m ary ju d g m en t w as m oo t wh en t he is s ue rai s ed i n t h e

m o ti o n was res o lv ed at t ri al ); Oa kh u r s t Pr es b y te rian C h u rch

, In c. v. Hen dr i

x , 2 9 8 Ga.

25(b ) Fi n al l y , Yas h cl ai m s t h at th e t ri al co u rt erred in g ran t in g s u m m ary ju d g m en t

t o NYG as t o i t s b reach -o f-co n t ract cl ai m , wh i ch was b as ed o n Yas h ’ s fai l u re t o p ay

cert ai n NYG i n v o ices i n v i o l at i o n o f t h e M SA’ s p ay -wh en -p ai d p ro v i s i o n

.

Th e co n s t ru ct i o n o f a co n t ract i s , o f co u rs e, a q u es t i on o f l aw fo r t he co u rt

, 3 9

an d in v ol v es t h ree s tep s

. 4 0 Fi rs t

, we m u s t d eci de wh et h er “ t h e l an g u ag e o f t h e co n t ract

i s cl ear an d u n am

b i g uo u s

. ” 4 1 If i t i s, t h e co n t ract m u st b e “ en fo rced acco rd in g t o i t s

p l ai n t erm s , an d t he co n t ract al o n e i s l o ok ed t o fo r m ean i n g.” 4 2 N ex t

, i f th e l an g u ag e

o f t h e co n t ract i s “ am

b i g uo u s i n s o m e res p ect ,” t h e ru l es o f co n t ract co ns t ru ct i o n

“ m u s t b e ap p l i ed b y t h e co u rt t o res o l ve t h e am b i g u i ty .” 4 3 Las tl y , i f am

bi g u i t y rem ai n s

aft er ap p ly i n g t h e ru l es o f co ns t ru ct i o n , “ t he i ss u e o f wh at t he am b i g u o u s l an g u ag e

Ap p

. 22 6

, 2 2 6 (1 ) (6 7 9 SE2 d 7 4 2 ) (1 ) (2 00 9 ) (h o ld i n g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s den i al o f

s u m m ary ju d g m en t p res en t ed n o t hi n g fo r t h i s C o u rt ’ s rev i ew w h en a ju ry award ed a ju d g m en t ag ai n st t h e m ov an t as t o t h e cl ai m at i s s ue).

3 9 S e e Bd

. o f Co mm’r

s o f Cr i sp Ct

y. v. Ci t y Co mm’r

s o f Ci t y o f Co r d el e , 3 1 5 Ga. Ap p . 6 9 6 , 6 9 9 (7 2 7 SE2 d 5 2 4 ) (2 0 1 2 ).

4 0 Id

.

4 1 Id

.

4 2 Id

.

4 3 Id

.

26m ean s an d wh at t h e p art i es i n t en d ed m u s t b e res o l v e d b y a ju ry .” 4 4 In d eed

, t h e

card i n al ru le o f co n tract co n s t ru ct i o n i s t o “ as cert ai n t h e i n t en t i on o f t h e part i es ,” as

refl ect ed b y

t h e l an g u ag e o f t h e ag reem en t. 4 5

As t o NYG’ s b reach -o f-c o n t ract cl ai m , Yas h as sert s th at i t s “ ces s at i o n o f

p erfo rm an ce” o f t h e p ay -wh en -p ai d p ro v i s i o n was p red i cat ed o n NYG’ s b reach o f t h e

M SA’ s n o n -co m

p et e p ro v i s i o n

. Bu t s et t i n g as i d e t h e wai v er o f i t s ab i l i t y to en fo rce

t h e n o n-co m

p et e cl au s e, Yas h fai l s t o i d en t ify an y lan g u a g e i n t h e t ext o f t h e M SA

ex cu si n g i t fro m co m

p ly i n g wi t h t h e EM C ad d en du m ’ s p ay -wh en -p ai d p ro v i s i o n

u n d er a n y ci rcu m s t an ces o t h er t h an i f Yas h i s n o t p ai d by i t s cl i en t

, 4 6 m u ch l e s s

l an g u ag e s p eci fi cal l y co n dit i o n i n g p ay m en t on NYG’ s co m p li an ce wi t h t h e u n rel at ed

n o n -co m p et e cl au se. Th i s i s b ecau s e t h e M SA co n t ai n s no s u ch l an g u ag e. In d eed

, t h e

M SA’ s n on -co m

p et e cl au s e, d et ai l ed i n Di v is i o n 1 (a) s u p r a , l i s t s al l o f t h e p ro h i b i t ed

4 4 Id

. (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

4 5 Id

. (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

4 6 Un l i k e t h e n o n -co m

p et e p ro v is i o n o f t h e MSA, un d er t h e pro v i s i on i n Art i cl e VIII t it l ed “ Perfo rm an ce Gu aran t ee,” Yas h i s ex cu sed fro m p ay in g NYG i f t h e cl i en t
wi t h wh o m t h e co ns u l t an t i s p l aced fai l s t o p a y Y as h. Bu t t h ere i s n o s i m i l ar

ex em p t i o n fo r a v i o l at i o n o f t h e n o n -co m p et e p ro v i s i o n

.

27co m

p et i t i v e co n d uct b ut m ak es n o m en t i o n o f Yas h ’ s p ay m en t o b l i g at i o n s u n d er t h e

co n tract

.

Yas h al so fai l s t o ack n o wl ed ge t h at Art ic l e X I o f t h e MSA— wh i ch i s t i t l ed

“ Rem ed i es ” an d i m

m ed i at el y fo l l o ws t h e n o n-co m p et e p ro vi s i o n

—

p ro v i d es t h at an y

v i o l a t i o n o f cert ai n M SA p ro v i s i o n s , i n cl u d i ng t h e n o n -co m pet e cl au s e, wi l l res u l t

i n “ irrep arab l e an d co n t i n u in g d am ag e to YASH an d It s Cl i en t,” an d as a res u l t

, t h e

rem ed ies av ai l ab l e at l aw fo r an y b reach o r t hreat en ed breach o f t h e M SA wo u l d b e

i n ad eq u at e. Art i cl e X I fu rt h er p ro v i d es t h at

, i n ad d i t i o n t o an y o t h er rem ed i es

av ai l ab l e at l aw or i n eq u i t y , Y as h “ s h al l b e en t i t l ed t o t em p o rary , p rel i m i n ary [,] an d

p erm an en t i n

ju n ct iv e rel ief, wi t h o u t t h e n eces si ty of po s t i n g b o n d

, an d act u al

at t o rn ey s ’ fees an d co s t s i n en fo rci n g t hi s Ag reem en t .” Th u s , t h e s p eci fi c p ro v i s i o n

reg ard i n g t h e rem ed ies av ai l ab l e fo r a b reach of t h e n o n -co m p et e cl au s e al s o m ak es

n o referen ce t o t h e p ay m en t p ro v i s i o n s o f th e M SA, m u ch l es s an y ex em

p t io n s fro m

p ay i n g NYG’ s i nv o i ces

.

Nev ert h el es s , Yas h m ai n t ai ns t h at N YG’ s co m p et i t i v e m i s co nd u ct ju s t i fi ed

n o n p ay m en t o f i t s i n vo ices

, an d t h e ju ry s h o u ld hav e b een p erm i t t ed t o h ear ev i d en ce

o f s u ch m i s c o n d uct at t ri al

. Bu t we h av e h el d t h at u n les s an am bi g u i t y ex i s t s , t h e

co u rt “ m ay n o t l o o k o ut s id e t h e t e r m s o f t h e co n tract t o co n s i d er su rro u n d i n g

28ci rcu m s t an ces or p aro l ev i d en ce.” 4 7 In d eed

, wh en th e l an g uag e o f t h e co n t ract i s cl ear

an d u nam b i g uo u s , i t wi l l b e “ en fo rced acco rd i ng to i t s p l ai n t erm s , an d t h e co n t ract

a l o n e is lo o k ed t o fo r m e a n i n g .” 4 8 An d h ere, b ecau se Yas h ’ s p ay m en t o b li g at i on s

u n d er t h e M SA were n o t am b i g u o u s , an y ev i den ce o f N YG ’s m i s c o nd u ct was

i rrel ev an t i n co n s i d e ri ng wh et h er Yas h breach ed t h e p ay -wh en -p ai d p ro v i s i o n

. In

s u m , wh il e Yas h m ak es arg um en t s b as ed o n “ fai rn es s,” i t m a k es n o at t em p t to

i d en t i fy an y act u a l la n g u a g e i n t h e co n tract t o s u pp o rt i t s arg u m en t

. Su ffi ce i t t o s ay ,

t h i s i s fat al t o i t s cl ai m

o f erro r. 4 9

4 7 4 G Pr o p s

., LLC v. GALS Rea l Es t a t e, In c ., 2 8 9 Ga. Ap p

. 3 1 5, 31 6 (6 5 6 SE2 d

9 2 2 ) (2 0 0 8 ); s ee Ir vi n v. La xmi

, I n c ., 2 6 6 Ga. 2 0 4

, 2 0 5 (1 ) (4 6 7 SE2 d 5 1 0) (1 9 9 6 ) (“ Paro l ev i d en ce m ay n o t b e c o n s id ered u n l es s t h e wri tt en i n st ru m en t i s

am bi g uo u s .”); d

e Ca st r o v. Du r r el l

, 2 9 5 G a

. Ap p. 1 94

, 2 0 0 (2 ) (a) (6 7 1 SE2 d 2 4 4 ) (2 0 0 8) (“ Nei t h er p aro l ev i d en ce n o r s urro u n d i n g ci rcu m s tan ces m ay b e c o n s i d ered

u n l es s t h e [co n t ract ] i s am b ig u o u s .”).

4 8 Bd . o f Co mm’r s o f Cr i s p Ct y. , 3 1 5 Ga. Ap p. at 6 99 (em p h as i s s u p p l i ed ).

4 9 S e e Fi rs t Da t a POS

, In c. v. W

i l l i s , 2 7 3 Ga. 7 9 2

, 79 4 (2 ) (5 4 6 SE2 d 7 8 1 ) (2 0 0 1) (“ W h en ev er t h e l an g u ag e o f a co n t ract i s pl ai n, u n am b i g u o u s , an d cap ab l e o f

o n l y o n e reas o n ab l e i n t erp ret at i o n , n o co n s t ru ct i o n i s req u i red o r ev en p erm i s s i b l e,

an d t he co n t ract u al l an g u ag e u s ed b y t h e p art ie s m u s t b e affo rd ed i t s l i t eral

m ean i n g .”); Jo h n s o n , 33 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 5 5 (3 ) (s am e); G a r r et t v. S

. Hea l t h Co r

p

. of

El l i ja y , 32 0 Ga. Ap p

. 1 7 6, 1 8 2 (1 ) (7 3 9 SE2 d 6 6 1 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (“ If t h e t erm s o f a co n t ract

are p l ai n an d u nam

b i g u o us , t h e co n t ract u al term s al o n e d et erm i n e t he p art i es ’ i n t en t .” (em p h as i s s u p p l i ed )); B l u e Cr o s s & Bl u e S h i el d o f Ga

., In c. v. S

h i r l ey , 30 5 G a. Ap p. 4 3 4

, 43 7 (1 ) (6 9 9 SE2 d 6 1 6 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (ex p l a i n i n g t h at

, i n co n st ru i n g a co n t ract

p ro v is i o n , “ th e tri al co u rt m u s t d eci de wh et h er t h e l an g ua g e i s cl ear an d

29Fo r al l t h es e reas o ns , we affi rm t h e tri al co u rt ’ s g ran t o f su m m ary j u d gm en t to

NYG an d t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct i n i t s fav o r.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Go b ei l

a n d Ho d g es , JJ., co n cu r

.

u n am b i g u o u s [,] [an d ] [i ] f i t i s , t h e co u rt s i m p l y en fo rces th e co n tract acco rd i n g t o i t s cl ear t erm s ; th e co n t r a ct

a l o n e i s l o o k ed t o fo r i ts m ean i n g ” (em p h as is s u p p l i ed )).

30