Court Opinion

ID: 9606174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:48:01.028635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:33.745144
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur and note that the trial court did not grant judgment for *834defendants but rather dismissed the action although defendants were entitled to judgment on the merits.
Decided November 10, 1987.
David F. Walbert, Jesse B. Beasley, Jr., for appellant.
John M. Tatum, William G. Bell III, John B. Miller, for appellees.
Secondly, the court based its ruling on the premise that “there are no material facts at issue” and applied the law to “the undisputed facts.” Thus it impliedly rejected the contention of plaintiff that the omission of the 90-day notice provision in the bond, considered together with two unrelated bonds in which the provision was included, proved an intent to waive the statutory notice. The fact of intent was sought to be placed in issue, but the court apparently refused to allow it to be made so, instead confining defendants to the four corners of the instrument.
I agree that a comparison of these two types of bonds given on different jobs is irrelevant to the fact question of intent, so that as stated in the opinion, “the record . . . contains no evidence of any other conduct from which such a waiver could be inferred.”