Court Opinion

ID: 9936594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:58:23.380558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:03.452046
License: Public Domain

I agree with the principles of law respecting a release enunciated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Jones. Because of this Court's general policy that summary judgment is not appropriate where there is any evidence, however weak, supporting the nonmoving party, I am compelled to concur.
Whether the impromptu oral statement of Freeman, when told of the sales transaction, to the effect that "that was fine," constituted a release under Code 1975, § 8-1-23, is extremely doubtful. Moreover, the detriment element necessary to prove "new consideration" may indeed be difficult to establish. I do not understand the principal opinion in this case to mean that the consideration moving from Walters to Thrash, representing the sales price paid to Thrash for his interest in the business, necessarily constitutes the "new consideration" referred to in § 8-1-23. *Page 72