FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T APRI L 5, 2 011 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 49 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 6- cv -0 05 54 -GGB DISCR ETE W IRELESS, INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r-Defe nd an t-Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

COLEMAN TECHNOLOG IES, INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Co un te r-Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 5, 2 01 1) Befo re PRYOR, MARTIN, an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Co le m anTech no lo gi es , Inc . app eal s t he Dis tri ctCo urt’s d en ia l o f it s Fe d. R.

Ci v. P. 5 9( e) m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t t o a wardpre -jud gm en t in te res t u nd er O.C.G.A. § 7 -4 -1 6. Co le m anals o app eal s t he Dis tri ctCo urt’s de ni al of i ts Ru le 50 (b ) ren ewedm ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law o n acla im fo r pr om is so ry

est op pe l as se rte d b y

Dis cret e Wirel es s, In c. Afte r th or ou gh rev ie w,
we rev ers e. I. Dis cret e Wirel es s, In c. (“ Dis cret e”) c on tra ct edwit h C ol em anTech no lo gi es , In c. (“ Co le m an ”) fo r th e d es ig n a ndsupp ly of cu st om -m ad e GPS v eh ic le tra ck in g de vi ces . Disc ret e p ur ch as edth e d ev ic es fro m Co le m anby sub m it ti ng pu rch as e
or de rs , whi ch setou t s pe ci fic qu an ti ty, pr ic e, an d d el iv ery te rm s. Th e p art ie s’ rel at io ns hi p e ve ntua ll y

bro ke do wn, an d i n e arl y Marc h 2 00 6 Di sc ret e in fo rm ed Co le m anth atitwou ldno t ac cep t o r pay foran y futur e d el iv eri es of GPS de vi ces fro m Co le m an . At th atti m e, Dis cret e h adno t p ai d C ol em anforsh ip m en ts th atit ha d re cei ve d fr om

Sep te m be r 20 05 to Jan ua ry

20 06
. On M arch 8, 2 00 6, Di sc ret e b ro ug htsu itag ai ns t Co le m anin th e U.S. di st ric t co urt i n t he Nort he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a. InAug us t 2 00 6, Di sc ret e fi le d a
se co ndam en de d c om

pl ai ntass ert in g c la im s fo r, in te r a li a , bre ach of c on tra ct , br each of e xp res s warran ty, an d p ro m is so ry est op pe l. Co le m anan swe red
2Dis cret e’s se co ndam en de d c om pl ai ntan d ra is edco un te rcl ai m s fo r, in te r a li a , su it
on acco un t an d b reac h o f co nt ract . The Di st ric t Co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t to Co le m anon it s co un te rcl ai m forsu iton acco un t an d a ward edCo le m an $1 ,01 7,5 51 in da m ag es . The res t o f th e p art ie s’ cla im s p ro ceed edto a jury tria l. Afte r an ele ve n d ay

tri al , th e jury fou ndforCo le m anon it s b reac h o f co nt ract
co un te rcl ai m

an d a ward ed$2 29 ,37 4 i n d am ag es . Howev er, the jury al so returne d
a v erd ic t fo r Dis cret e o n i ts pro m is so ry est op pe l cl ai m

an d a ward ed$3 06 ,40 0 i n da m ag es . Afte r jud gm en t was en te red , Col em anm ov edun de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 9( e) t o a lt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t. In it s m ot io n, Co le m anreque st ed th atth e jud gm en t b e am en de d t o i nc lu de th e $ 1,0 17 ,55 1 t ha t i t h adbe enaward ed
on it s s ui t o n a cco un t co un te rcl ai m . Col em anals o a sk edto be award edpre jud gm en t i nt eres t o n t he acco un t awa rdpu rs ua ntto O.C.G.A. § 7-4 -1 6. In a
se pa rat e m ot io n, Co le m anren ewedit s p rev io us m ot io n u nd er Fe d. R. C iv . P. 50 (b ) fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law o n Di sc ret e’s pr om is so ry est op pe l cl ai m . The Dis tri ctCo urt am en de d t he jud gm en t t o i nc lu de th e acc ou ntawardbu t d en ie d Co le m an ’s reque stforpre -jud m en t i nt eres t. The Dis tri ctCo urt al so de ni ed Co le m an ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m atte r of law o n Di sc ret e’s pr om is so ry
es to pp el cla im . Col em anno w app eal s t ho se rul in gs . 3II.

“ W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d ajud gm en t u nd er Ru le 59 (e) fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Shu fo rdv. Fi d. Nat ’l Pro p. & Cas . Ins . Co., 5 08 F.3 d 1 33 7, 1 34 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . “ The on ly gro un ds forgrant in g [aRu le 59 ]
m ot io n a re n ewly-di sc ov eredev id en ce o r m an ife sterro rs of l aw orfact .” Arth ur v. Ki ng , 50 0 F .3d13 35 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (quo ta ti on
m ark s o m it te d) ; s ee al so Mi ch ael Lin et , Inc . v. Vil la ge of Well in gt on , Fla ., 40 8 F.3 d 7 57 , 76 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (“ [A] Rule 59 (e) m ot io n [c an no t b e u se d] to rel it ig at e o ldm at te rs , rai se arg um en t o r pr es en t ev id en ce t ha t co ul d h av e b een rai se d p rio r to th e en try of jud gm en t” ).

“ W e rev ie w de n ov o t he de ni al of am ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law, ap pl y in g t he same stand ardas t he di st ric t co urt.” Br own v. Al a. Dep ’t of Tran sp ., 59 7 F .3d11 60 , 11 73 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Ju dg m en t as a m at te r of la w is ap pr op ria te on ly if “ th e fac ts an d i nf eren ces po in t o ve rwh el m in gl y in fav or of on e p art y , su ch th atreas on ab le pe op le co ul d n otarri ve at aco ntrary verd ic t.” Co m bs v. Pl an ta ti on Pat te rn s, 1 06 F.3d15 19 , 15 26 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (quo ta ti on
m ark s o m it te d) . “ Inm ak in g t ha t d et erm in at io n, we re vi ew al l o f th e ev id en ce i n th e rec or d, b utwe m

us t d raw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof the no nm ov in g

4pa rty, and
. . . m ay no t m ak e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io ns or we ig h t he ev id en ce.” Bro wn, 5 97 F.3dat 1 17 3 (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. III. Co le m anco nt en ds th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt erredin fai li ng to awardpre jud gm en t i nt eres t p ur su an t t o O.C.G.A. § 7 -4 -1 6 o n i ts su iton acco un t
co un te rcl ai m . Sect io n 7 -4 -1 6 o f th e Geo rg iaCo de pro vi de s, i n re le va ntpa rt, t ha t: The own er of a co m

m erci al acco un t m ay ch arg e in te res t on th at po rti on of a co m m erci al acco un t whi ch ha s be en du e an d pay ab le fo r 30 da y s or m or e at a rat e no t in ex ces s of 1 1/ 2 pe rcen t pe r m on th cal cu la te d on th e am ou nt owe d fro m th e da te up on whi ch it be cam e du e an d pa y ab le un ti l pa id
. See a ls o S pe ars v. Al li edEng ’g Ass oc s., In c., 36 8 S .E.2d81 8, 8 19 –2 0 (Ga . Ct. App . 19 88 ) (n ot in g t ha t § 7-4 -1 6 “ al lo ws a m ax im um of 1 8 p erce ntan nu al in te res t
on co m m erci al acco un ts ”); Pri nc e v . Lee Ro of in g C o., 2 88 S.E.2d13 5, 1 36 –3 7 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 82 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at§ 7 -4 -1 6 g iv es a co m m erci al cred it orth e

“ op ti on to setwhat ev er i nt eres t ra te he wis he s af te r de fau ltup to th e li m it sp eci fie d” ). Inord er t o re co ve r pr e-ju dg m en t i nt eres t u nd er § 7-4 -1 6, a c omm erci al cred it orm

us t m ak e “ a p re-t ria l i nv oc at io n o f th e ap pl ic ab il ity of t ha t p ro vi si on .” Ja ckV. HeardCo nt ract or s, In c. v. M or iarity , 36 3 S .E.2d82 2, 8 24 (Ga. Ct . App
. 19 87 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ; co m pa re Owen s v . McGee & Oxf or d, 5 18
5S.E.2d69 9, 7 01 –0 2 (Ga . Ct. Ap p. 1 99 9) (pr e-ju dg m en t i nt eres t av ai labl e whe re

co nt ractat i ss ue “pr ov id edth atan y st at em en t wh ic h re m ai ne d u np ai d a fte r fo rtyfiv e d ay s wo ul d b ear i nt eres t o f on e-an d- on e-h al f pe rcen t i nt eres t p er m on th ” an d
co m pl ai ntask edforin te res t o wed ); Am . Alu m in um Pro ds . Co. v . Bin swa ng er Glas s C o., 3 91 S.E.2d68 8, 6 94 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 90 ) (p re-ju dg m en t i nt eres t
av ai labl e whe re cr ed it or“ reque st edin te res t atth e rat e o f 18 pe rcen t p er an nu m on da m ag es . . . in it s co un te rcl ai m an d i n t he pre tri al ord er”) ; Ten ch v. U.S. Tsuba ki , In c., 38 1 S .E.2d31 9, 3 20 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 89 ) (cre di to r co ul d re co ve r pr ejud gm en t i nt eres t wh ere § 7-4 -1 6 was rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e in th e co m pl ai nt ); Ja ck , 36 3 S .E.2dat 8 24 (fi nd in g p re-ju dg m en t i nt eres t av ai labl e whe re cr ed it or
am en de d i ts co m

pl ai ntap pr ox im at el y

fou r m on th s b efo re tria l t o s eekco m m erci al rat e o f in te res t); with Go ldKis t Pe an ut s v . Alb ers on , 34 2 S .E.2d69 4, 6 97 (Ga. Ct
. App . 19 86 ) (p re-ju dg m en t i nt eres t u na va il ab le wher e “ th e co nt ractit se lf s pe ci fie d
no rat e o f in te res t, an d . . . [th e] com pl ai ntm erel y

pray edfor‘ in te res t’ with ou t sp eci fy in g t he rat e th ereo f”); Pri nc e, 28 8 S .E.2dat 1 37 (pr e-ju dg m en t i nt eres t n ot
av ai labl e whe re cr ed it orask edfor1 1 /2 pe rcen t i nt eres t p er m on th forth e fi rs t ti m e in jury in st ru ct io n) . In t he in vo cat io n, t he cred it orm us t s pe ci fy

th e ex actrat e atwhi ch in te res t ac cru es . See Sp ears , 36 8 S .E.2dat 8 20 (pr e-ju dg m en t i nt eres t
no t av ai labl e whe re cr ed it orso ug htin co m pl ai nt“ ‘int eres t as all owe d b y Geor gi a 6la w forco m

m erci al acco un ts ’” becaus e “ itwas n otcle ar wh ethe r [the cred it or ]
was see ki ng 1.5 pe rcen t i nt eres t p er m on th
. . . orso m e le ss er ra te whi chals o
wou ldha ve be enpro pe r un de r th e st atut e”). On Fe brua ry

10 , 20 06 , Col em ansen t Di sc ret e it s “ St an da rdTerm s an d Co nd it io ns ,” whi ch pro vi de d t ha t: “ [i]f Cu st om er fa il s t o p ay anin vo ic e whe n due pe r th e st at edpa ym en t t erm s, Cu st om er s ha ll pa y in te res t o f 1.5 % pe r m on th on th e o us ta nd in g a m ou ntfro m th e due da te un ti l t he pa ym en t d at e.” Init s
co un te rcl ai m

forsu itonacco un t, Co le m anso ug ht“ da m ag es , as wel l as att orne y s’ fees , cos ts , andin te res t.” ( em ph as is ad de d) . The Co ns ol id at edPretria l Ord er st at edth atCo le m anwas s eek in g “ in te res t o n t he co m m erci al acco un t” an d c it ed O.C.G.A. § 7- 4- 16 . By

vi rtu e o f th os e d oc um en ts , Col em anarg ue s t ha t i t
co m pl ie d wi th th e requi rem en t t o m ak e a p re-tria l i nv oc at io n o f § 7 -4 -1 6. Dis cret e arg ue s i n re sp on se th atno ne of t ho se do cu m en ts ad equa te ly in vo ke d § 7-4 -1 6. Al th ou gh th e Feb ru ary 6, 2 01 0 S tand ardTerm s an d C on di ti on s pr ov id edth atan y

ou ts ta nd in g a m ou ntwou ldbe ar 1 .5% i nt eres t, Di sc ret e as se rts th atth os e te rm s an d c on di ti on s d o n otap pl y to th e d eb ts un de rlyin g C ol em an ’s
su iton acco un t co un te rcl ai m an d t he refo re ca nn otsat is fy th e in vo cat io n requi rem en t. Dis cret e n ot es th atth e St an da rdTerm s an d C on di ti on s p ro vi de th at th ey “ supp le m en t t he co rres po nd in g P ur ch as e Ord er Qu ot e” an d p oi nt s o utth atth e 7pu rch as e o rd ers form in g t he ba si s o f Co le m an ’s cou nt ercl ai m were s ub m it te d fr om Sep te m be r 20 05 to Jan ua ry

20 06 . Disc ret e al so arg ue s t ha t Co le m an ’s
co un te rcl ai m

an d t he Co ns ol id at edPret ria l Ord er d o n otco m pl y wit h t he requi rem en t t o m ak e a p re-t ria l i nv oc at io n o f § 7 -4 -1 6 b ecau se ne it he r sp eci fie d th e ex actrat e atwhi ch in te res t was to accrue . Afte r th or ou gh rev ie w, we con cl ud e th atCo le m anwas n oten ti tl edto pre jud gm en t i nt eres t u nd er O.C.G.A. § 7 -4 -1 6 o n i ts su iton acco un t co un te rcl ai m be cau se Co le m andi d n otco m pl y wit h t he requi rem en t t ha t a c omm erci al cred it or
m ak e a “pr e-t ria l i nv oc at io n o f th e ap pl ic ab il it y of t ha t p ro vi si on .” Gol d Ki st Pean ut s, 3 42 S.E.2dat 6 97 . Whi le th e Feb ru ary 6, 2 01 0 S ta nd ardTerm s an d Co nd it io ns pro vi de d t ha t o ut st an di ng am ou nt s wo ul d b ear 1 .5% i nt eres t, i t d idno t ap pl y to th e d eb ts un de rlyin g C ol em an ’s cou nt ercl ai m . Cf. Owens , 51 8 S .E.2dat 70 2 (c on tra ctsu edup on st at edth at“ an y st at em en t wh ic h re m ai ne d u np ai d a fte r fo rty-fiv e d ay s wo ul d b ear i nt eres t o f on e-an d- on e h al f pe rcen t p er m on th ”). It i s t ru e th atun de r Geo rg ialaw “ [i]f th e rat e al lo wedun de r . . . § 7- 4- 16 is
so ug htbe fo re t ria l, t he tri al co urt i s au th or iz edto gra ntpre -jud gm en t i nt eres t at th atrat e.” Sp ears , 36 8 S .E.2dat 8 20 (reject in g a rg um en t t ha t p re-ju dg m en t in te res t u nd er § 7-4 -1 6 was no t av ai labl e b ecau se th e ag reem en t b etween th e cred it oran d d eb to r an d c red it or ’s in vo ic es di d n otsp eci fy th atin te res t wo ul d b e 8ch arg edonpa stdu e acc ou nt s) . Howev er, Co le m an ’s pre -tr ia l ef fo rts to see k in te res t u nd er § 7-4 -1 6 d idno t s pe ci fy th e rat e o f in te res t b ei ng so ug ht . See i d. at 82 0 (c on cl ud in g t ha t t ria l co urt erredin award in g p re-ju dg m en t i nt eres t wh ere cred it orso ug htin co m

pl ai nt“ in te res t as all owe d b y Geor gi a la w forco m

m erci al
acco un ts ” b ecau se cred it ordi d n otst at e th e ex actrat e o f in te res t re qu es te d u nd er § 7- 4- 16 ). In i ts su iton acco un t co un te rcl ai m , Col em anm erel y pray edfor

“ in te res t,” a ndin th e Co ns ol id at edPret ria l Ord er, Co le m anso ug htas d am ag es

“ in te res t o n t he co m

m erci al acco un t” cit in g § 7-4 -1 6 a s t he ba si s fo r it s re qu es t. Neit he r do cu m en t “ sp eci f[i ed ] th e in te res t ra te so ug ht .” Id . (em ph as is ad de d)
. The Co ns ol id at edPretria l Ord er, wh il e refe ren ci ng § 7 -4 -1 6, d idno t m ak e it“ cl ear whe th er [C ol em an ] was see ki ng 1.5 pe rcen t i nt eres t p er m on th , th e m ax im um al lo wab le rat e fo r co m

m erci al acco un ts , or s om e le ss er ra te whi ch als o wo ul d h av e be enpro pe r un de r th e st atut e.” Id . Und er the se cir cu m st an ces , th e fai lu re t o awardCo le m anpre -jud gm en t i nt eres t u nd er § 7-4 -1 6 was no t erro r. Co le m anarg ue s i n t he alt ern at iv e th atitwas e nt it le d t o p reju dg m en t i nt eres t atth e “ le ga l ra te ” u nd er O.C.G.A. § 7 -4 -2 (a)( 1) (A), whi chpro vi de s t ha t “ [t]he le ga l ra te of i nt eres t s ha ll be 7 p erce ntpe r an nu m si m pl e in te res t wh ere t he rat e

9pe rcen t i s n otest ab li sh edby writ te n c on tra ct .” Und er Geo rg ialaw, “ [a]ll 1 li qu id at edde m an ds , wher e b y ag reem en t o r ot he rwis e th e su m to be pa idis fix ed
orcert ai n b ear i nt eres t fr om th e ti m e th e p arty

sh al l b eco m e li ab le an d b ou ndto pa y th em .” O.C.G.A. § 7-4 -1 5; see als o C ol on ia l Bankv. Bo ul de r Ban kc ard Pro ces si ng , Inc ., 56 3 S .E.2d49 2, 4 98 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 02 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at

“ [d ]am ag es are l iqui da te d wh enth ey are an am ou ntcert ai n a ndfix ed , eit he r by the actan d a gr eem en t o f th e p art ie s, o r by op erat io n o f la w; a s um whi ch can no t b e ch an ge d b y

th e p ro of ” (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ). “ The awardof p reju dg m en t in te res t p ur su an t t o O.C.G.A. § 7 -4 -1 5 i s m an da to ry rat he r th andi sc ret io na ry , and is award edby a j ud ge as am at te r of law.” C on su lt in g C on str. Co rp . v. Edwa rd s, 42 7 S .E.2d78 9, 7 92 –9 3 (Ga . Ct. Ap p. 1 99 3) (ci ta ti onom it te d)
. Here, Co le m an ’s dam ag es on it s s ui t o n a cco un t co un te rcl ai m were fi xe d, cert ai n, an d a sc ert ai nabl e m ak in g t he m li qu id at ed . See Co lo ni al Ban k, 5 63 S.E.2d
Coleman did not raise this argument in its Rule 59(e ) motion. Howeve r, the 1 Consolidated Pretrial Orde r provided that Coleman was see king a s damag es “[i] ntere st on contra ct and c ommercia l acc ount pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 7-4- 2 and 7-4- 16.” We conclude that the re fer ence to § 7-4-2 in the pre -trial orde r ade quately prese rved this issue for a ppellate r eview. Cf. Millennium P artne rs, L .P. v. Col mar Storag e, L L C, 494 F.3d 1293, 1304 (11th Cir. 2007) (conc luding that a

rgument not raised in Rule 59(e ) motion was not subject to appe llate re view beca use the a rgument was ra ised for the first time on appea l); see a lso Hutches v. Renfr oe, 200 F.2d 337, 340–41 ( 5th Cir. 1953) (conc luding that district cour t’s failure to apply

the prope r measure of dama g es wa s a manife st error of law e ven though the plaintiff re lied on the wrong leg al theory

in motion t o amend the judgment). In Bonne r v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (e n banc) , we a dopted as bindingprec edent a ll decisions of the for mer Fifth Circuit hande d down bef ore O ctober

1, 1981. 10at49 8. Di sc ret e co nc ed edth atitrece iv edan d n ev er p ai d fo r $1 ,01 7,5 51 wort h o f

GPS u ni ts fro m

Co le m an . For t ha t re as on , th e Dis tri ctCo urt erredin fai li ng to awardCo le m anpre -jud gm en t i nt eres t atth e le ga l ra te est ab li sh edby O .C.G.A. § 7- 4- 2. Se e Gol d Ki stPean ut s, 3 42 S.E.2dat 6 97 (co nc lu di ng th atcred it orno t
en ti tl edto pre -jud gm en t i nt eres t u nd er § 7-4 -1 6 was en ti tl edto pre -jud gm en t in te res t atth e le ga l ra te un de r § 7 -4 -2 ). The Di st ric t Co urt’s d en ia l o f Co le m an ’s Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n was erro r. IV. Co le m anals o arg ue s t ha t t he Dis tri ctCo urt erredby den y in g i ts m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law o n Di sc ret e’s pr om is so ry est op pe l cl ai m . Und er Geo rg ialaw, t he ele m en ts of acla im forpro m is so ry

est op pe l ar e: (1 ) th e de fen da nt m ad e a pr om is e or pr om is es ; (2 ) th e de fen da nt sh ou ld ha ve reas on ab ly ex pe ct ed th e pl ai nt iff [ ] to rel y on su ch pr om is e; (3 ) th e pl ai nt iff [ ] rel ie d on su ch pr om is e to [it s] de tri m en t; an d (4 ) an in jus ti ce can on ly b e a v o i d e d by th e en fo rcem en t of th e pr om is e, be cau se as a res ul t of th e rel ia nc e, pl ai nt iff [ ] ch an ge d [it s] po si ti on to [it s] de tri m en t by surren de rin g, fo rg oi ng , or re nd eri ng a va lu ab le rig ht
. Bro wn v . Rad er, 6 83 S.E.2d16 , 21 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 09 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ;
se e al so Mo on ey

v. Mo on ey , 53 8 S .E.2d86 4, 8 68 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 00 ) (“ A pr om is e is a m an ife st io n o f an in te nt io n t o a ctor r efra in fro m act in g i n asp eci fie d way , so m ad e as to jus ti fy a pr om is ee i n u nd ers ta nd in g t ha t a c omm it m en t h as

11be enm ad e.”) (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . “ Pro m is so ry est op pe l d oe s n otap pl y

to a pr om is e th atis va gu e, in de fin it e, orof u nc ert ai n dur at io n.” Mari ne r Heal th care , In c. v. Fo st er, 6 34 S.E.2d16 2, 1 68 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 06 ); s ee, e.g ., Ga. Inv s. In t’l, In c. v. Br an ch Ban ki ng & Tru stCo ., 70 0 S .E.2d66 2, 6 64 –6 5 (Ga . Ct. Ap p. 2 01 0) (p ro m is e to refi na nc e lo anor p ro vi de a li ne of c red itfor12 m on th s wi th no sp eci fie d i nt eres t ra te was t oo va gu e an d i nd efi ni te to su st ai n p ro m is so ry est op pe l cl ai m); M ari ne r Heal th care , Inc ., 63 4 S .E.2dat 1 68 (pr om is e “ ‘tha t the term s an d
co nd it io ns of t he Leas e wou ldco nt in ue as l on g a s [t he pl ai nt iff ] pa idren t an d
co nt in ue d t o n eg ot ia te ” was to o v ag ue to supp ort a c la im forpro m is so ry

est op pe l). Dis cret e b as edit s p ro m is so ry est op pe l cl ai m

on anAug us t 2 4, 2 00 5 e m ai l fro m Mi ke Nico lo ff, Co le m an ’s tec hn ic al di rect or , to NickLegg , a Dis cret e
em pl oyee. In t he em ai l, Ni co lo ff s ta te d: Bel ow (a sc reen or 2) is th e fix Enfo ra reco m m en ds , I can pr ob ab ly ge t it do ne by no on to m orro w. I su gg es t we in co rp or at e th is fix in to th e firm ware th at co nt ai ns th e GPS filt er fix
. Wha t do y ou th in k? I wou ld li ke to ge t th es e in to a co up le of un it s in Ch arl ot te th at are cu rren tl y lo ck ed up an d se e if th is fix es th e pr ob le m vs . wha t we di d to da y whi ch was to ha ve Jo ey m an ua ll y is su e co m m an ds to th e m od em vi a th e se ria l co ns ol e ap pl ic at io n t o c le ar t he lo ck -up. Co le m anarg ue s t ha t Ni co lo ff’s p ro m is e was to o v ag ue an d i nd efi ni te to serve as th e b as is fora pr om is so ry est op pe l cl ai m . Col em anass ert s t ha t Ni co lo ff’s st at em en ts th at : “ I can pro babl y ge t i t d on e b y

no on to m orro w” an d t ha t “ I su gg es t
12we in co rp or at e th is fix ” are equi vo cal pre cl ud in g Di sc ret e’s cl ai m . In re sp on se ,

Dis cret e arg ue s t ha t Ni co lo ff’s equi vo cal st at em en ts on ly relat edto when th e fi x
wou ldbe pe rfo rm ed

—n otwhet he r itwou ldbe pe rfo rm ed —an d the refo re h is pr om is e is su ffi ci en tl y

de fin it e to supp ort i ts pro m is so ry est op pe l cl ai m . Drawi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof Di sc ret e, th e n on -m ov in g pa rty, we con cl ud e th atNico lo ff’s p ro m is e was to o v ag ue an d i nd efi ni te to form th e b as is of apro m is ory

est op pe l cl ai m . See Bro wn, 5 97 F.3dat 1 17 3. Un de r Geo rg ialaw, a cl ai m

forpro m is ory

est op pe l ar is es fro m

pro m is es “ whi chth e pr om is orsh ou ldreas on ab ly exp ectto in du ce ac ti onor f orbe aran ce o n t he pa rt o f th e p ro m is ee.” Ga. In vs . Int ’l, Inc., 7 00 S.E.2dat 6 64 (em ph as is ad de d) . Here, Nico lo ff’s p ur

po rte d p ro m is e was un cert ai n a s t o m at eri al term s s uc h a s wh atact
was be in g p ro m is edto be pe rfo rm edan d wh en . His e m ai l s ta te d: “ I su gg es t we in co rp or at e th is fix in to th e fi rm ware t ha t co nt ai ns th e GPS fi lt er fi x. Whatdo y ou th in k? ” an d t ha t “ I can pro babl y ge t i t d on e b y

no onto m orro w.” The eq ui vo cal
na tu re o f Nic ol of

f’s rep res en ta ti on s m ad e itun reas on ab le forDis cret e to rel y on th em . See W.R. Grace Co m pa ny-Con n v . Taco Tico Acqu is it io n C or p., 4 54 S.E.2d78 9, 7 91 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 95 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atif p la in ti ff co ul d n ot
reas on ab ly rely

on an y of t he de fen da nt ’s rep res en ta ti on s, p ro m is so ry est op pe l do es no t ap pl y ). Forth atreas on , we con cl ud e th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt erredin
13de nyin g C ol em an ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law o n Di sc ret e’s pr om is so ry

est op pe l cl ai m . REVERSED an d R EMANDED.

14