Court Opinion

ID: 9620171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:39:34.911796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:47.911030
License: Public Domain

Shulman, Judge.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant for breach of a purported lease agreement, wherein plaintiff had allegedly agreed to rent 101 acres of farm land from the defendant (for the purpose of growing corn) at the price of $26 per acre. From a judgment awarding plaintiff $1,000 in damages, defendant appeals. We affirm.
1. Appellant contests appellee’s recovery of damages, as based on lost profits, claiming that under the circumstances of this case lost profits are too remote and speculative to be recoverable. We cannot agree.
"The general rule that the loss of expected profits cannot be recovered does not apply where evidence of such loss is shown with reasonable certainty. [Cit.] 'The rule against the recovery of vague, speculative, or uncertain damages relates more especially to the uncertainty as to cause, rather than uncertainty as to the measure or extent of the damages. Mere difficulty in fixing their exact amount, where proximately flowing, from the alleged injury, does not constitute a legal obstacle in the way of their allowance, when the amount of the recovery comes within that authorized with reasonable certainty by the legal evidence submitted.’ [Cits.]” Farmers Mut. Exchange v. Dixon, 146 Ga. App. 663 (5) (247 SE2d 124).
Plaintiff presented evidence as to the approximate number of bushels of com he would have been able to harvest from the rented land. Through testimony of his own experience as a farmer and by the testimony of a neighboring farmer (who had farmed corn at approximately the same time of year), plaintiff presented evidence as to the expenses involved in farming com and the sale price of a bushel of com. Thus, the plaintiff produced evidence estimating the net profit he would have made had defendant honored the purported lease agreement.
We find, therefore, in accordance with Wideman v. Selph, 71 Ga. App. 343 (1, 2) (30 SE2d 797), that damages of lost profits were not too remote or speculative to be recovered in the case at bar. This enumeration of error is without merit.
*299Submitted July 2,1979 —
Decided November 14, 1979.
Malcolm F. Bryant, Jr., for appellant.
D. Duston Tapley, Jr., for appellee.
2. Defendant submits that the court erred in instructing the jury on nominal damages, contending that plaintiffs petition alleged only special damages. However, since plaintiff amended his original complaint to include a prayer for nominal damages, we find no error in the court’s charge.
3. In his last enumeration, appellant urges that, as a matter of law, there was no evidence of consideration for the purported lease agreement, We cannot agree.
The agreement, signed by both parties, stated that as consideration of, and in exchange for, payment to the defendant of $26 per acre, defendant agreed to lease to plaintiff certain of defendant’s land. Contrary to defendant’s contentions, the fact that she did not receive payment at the time she signed the agreement does not render the agreement void for lack of consideration. Kirkland v. Odum, 156 Ga. 131, 135 (118 SE 706); Nelson v. Woods, 205 Ga. 295 (2) (53 SE2d 227).
The foregoing enumerations of error being without merit, the judgment of the court below is affirméd.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., McMurray, P. J., Smith, Banke, Birdsong and Underwood, JJ., concur. Deen, C. J., concurs specially. Carley, J., dissents.