Court Opinion

ID: 9587234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:19:45.146663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:56.721613
License: Public Domain

Felton, Justice,
dissenting. Before the contract was signed, as *785per the agreement between the parties, defendant notified his counsel that he had concluded that the agreement was not fair to him or the children and that he would not sign and these facts were reported to the court. The contract intended by the parties was never signed. The agreement in this case was not an oral agreement to compromise and settle a law suit because no oral settlement was agreed to. An agreement to settle a divorce case as to all questions is against public policy. The law requires that the contract, intended to be binding by the parties, be executed before it is binding. The agreement here was equivalent to an agreement to agree and it is void for indefiniteness. Russell v. City of Atlanta, 103 Ga. App. 365 (119 SE2d 143). The case would be different if the parties had simply reached an oral agreement. Furthermore, the contract here involved an interest in lands and was not to be performed within a year. It is within the statute of frauds. Code § 20-401 (4) and (5). Appellee was not justified in assuming some obligations in reliance upon the oral understanding, since a written contract was intended to be the only binding obligation. In addition, the evidence as to what she has done in reliance upon the oral understanding is not clear and it does not show that it should take the transaction out of the statute of frauds and authorize specific performance. The most objectionable phase of the court’s rulings is that they make another unwarranted exception to the law which prevents the substitution of an oral agreement for a definite, written contract by which the parties agreed to be bound exclusively.