Legal Opinion · Dissent

Seaside Petroleum Co. v. Steve E. Rawl, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 20, 1985No. 70477Published

1DissentBirdsong, Presiding Judge

The majority finds that in this contract, “not only is there no obligation imposed upon Rawl to purchase all of its requirements of gasoline, but also there is no obligation imposed upon Rawl to buy even its Exxon requirements from Seaside,” citing Miami Butterine *343Co. v. Frankel, 190 Ga. 88, 94 (8 SE2d 398).

The contract in Miami Butterine Co. unlike the requirements contract in this case, is an “exclusive dealing” contract. Under OCGA § 11-2-306 (2), the buyer in an exclusive dealings contract promises to use best efforts to sell and distribute. Similarly, the buyer in a requirements contract…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Brack v. BrownleeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1981
  2. Fontaine v. Baxley, Boles & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1892
  3. Brooke v. Phillips Petroleum Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
  4. Hearn v. Old Dominion Freight LinesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
  5. McVay v. AndersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1965

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API