Court Opinion

ID: 9883298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:39:44.830873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:22.513073
License: Public Domain

Felton, Chief Judge,
dissenting. The amended contract showed that it was executed by two individuals. In my judgment the plaintiff’s pleadings do not authorize a conclusion that the plaintiff seeks to recover on the theory adopted by the majority—a construction in favor of the pleader on demurrer which is contrary to the rule in Georgia. Ford Motor Co. v. Williams, 219 Ga. 505 (134 SE2d 32). The majority ruling violates the parol evidence rule in that an individual’s signature cannot be construed to be that of a corporation in the circumstances of this case. The sole remedy is reformation, if in fact the mutual intent was to have a contract between an individual and a corporation. If the parties so desired, they could have executed a new agreement, one constituting a novation. If they did there is a wrong party defendant. It will be noted that the last agreement, executed by two individuals, in the very first sentence, provides: “The following stipulations are amendments to contract dated September 27, 1962, and made a part thereof, and to superceed [sic] any agreements in conflict herewith made prior to this date of December 20, 1962, all other provisions of contract dated September 27, 1962, are reaffirmed.”