Court Opinion

ID: 9846563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:43:44.114351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:38.189408
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur but not with all that is said. The entruster in this case was the CCC, not plaintiff Locke. CCC was the owner of the corn. OCGA § 11-2-403 (2) and (3) apply only to owners of goods. United Carolina Bank v. Sistrunk, 158 Ga. App. 107, 109 (2) (279 SE2d 272) (1981), citing several earlier cases on this point. See also Sunnyland *858&c. Credit Union v. Ft. Wayne Mtg. Co., 182 Ga. App. 5, 6 (354 SE2d 645) (1987). It is the act or omission of the CCC in entrusting the corn to Leeco, the corporate merchant, which enabled the wrongdoing person, merchant Leeco’s employee, to commit fraud. That is what allows this statutory departure from the common-law rule that a seller can convey no greater title than he has himself. Commercial Credit Equip. Corp. v. Bates, 159 Ga. App. 910 (285 SE2d 560) (1981).
Decided October 26, 1990
Rehearing denied December 4, 1990
Kirbo & McCalley, William C. McCalley, John V. Forehand, for appellant.
Guy V. Roberts, Jr., for appellee.
Locke merely stepped into CCC’s shoes when he obtained CCC’s cause of action, if any, against purchaser Arabi, so that the defense that it had bought the corn from a merchant was available to Arabi. Leeco came within the statutory definition of merchant, OCGA § 11-2-403 (2), as a matter of law because it dealt in corn, an undisputed fact.