Legal Opinion
Garrison v. Piatt
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided January 20, 1966No. 41747PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Pannell, Judge.
1. While, under the law as it stood prior to the adoption of the Commercial Code, a party sued upon a parol contract for the sale of goods within the statute of frauds (Code § 20-401 (7)) could admit the contract and at the same time insist upon the benefit of the statute (Hollingshead v. McKenzie, 8 Ga. 457; Douglass v. Bunn, 110 Ga. 165, 35 SE 339; Mendel v. Miller & Sons, 134 Ga. 610 (1), 68 SE 430); yet, since the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code (Ga. L. 1962, p. 156 et seq.) such a contract, if otherwise valid, is enforceable “if the party against whom enforcement…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Douglass v. BunnSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Mendel v. Miller & SonsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
- Hollingshead v. McKenzieSupreme Court of Georgia · 1850
- Lloyd v. City & Suburban Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1900
3Cited by18 opinions
- Ala, Inc. v. Ccair, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Dehahn v. InnesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1976
- Dangerfield v. MarkelNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1977
- M & W Farm Service Co. v. CallisonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1979
- Builder's Supply Corp. v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.