Court Opinion

ID: 9618587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:13:57.90651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:31:19.640388
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
concurring specially.
While I concur in the result, I write specially to note a potential problem with the majority’s interpretation of OCGA § 13-2-2 (7). I believe the exclusion of computer-generated forms from the scope of this Code section is unnecessary to a decision in this case and could create difficulties in the area of contract interpretation.
As the majority acknowledges, a cursory examination of the contract in question shows it was prepared by Dairyland with the assistance of a computer word processing program allowing the insertion of names and phrases into an existing form document. This document is no less a “form” because it exists in a computer’s memory rather than on paper. I believe it is reasonable to conclude, contrary to the majority’s assertion, that this computer-generated document is the modern equivalent of the offset-printed “fill-in-the-blanks form,” which shows signs of following the Linotype, carbon paper, and the scrivener into obscurity. A holding that forms generated by computer are somehow not forms will cause unanticipated and sometimes severe consequences in businesses which have already adopted these forms for general use.