Court Opinion

ID: 9588558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:35:43.927444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:15.553306
License: Public Domain

Clarke, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority opinion. In my view, a contract was not completed in the absence of being executed by both of the prospective sellers. I realize that the form of the contract is such that it is not clear that two sellers are contemplated. However, the buyers’ own affidavit in support of his motion for summary judgment highlights his awareness of such a contemplation.
“The consent of the parties being essential to a contract, until each has assented to all terms, there is no binding contract; until assented to, each party may withdraw his bid or proposition.” OCGA § 13-3-2. Since everyone in this transaction was aware that it involved three parties, two sellers and one purchaser, there is ho binding contract here because each of the parties had not assented to all of the *555terms. It is my view that to hold otherwise will set a dangerous trap for unwary owners of undivided interest in real estate who are approached by prospective purchasers. It is a common practice for purchasers to prepare contracts on forms similar to the one utilized in this case and to approach one-by-one the holders of undivided interest seeking signatures. Under the majority holding, it would be possible for the owner of a one-tenth undivided interest to sign the contract and then be liable to the prospective purchaser for the refusal of the owners of the remaining 90% interest to sign. I believe both the law and justice demand that a contract be complete before it becomes enforceable. For this reason, I dissent.
Decided November 13, 1986
Reconsideration denied December 18, 1986.
Quinton S. King, Edward C. Stone, for appellant.
Wall & Noonan, W. Alford Wall, Douglas T. Noonan, for appellees.