Parker v. Averett
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Dbbn, Judge.
2. Where the contract of sale expressly provided that the balance of the purchase price over $1,650 should be paid “from FHA loan” and that the sale was contingent on “purchaser being able to acquire FHA financing,” the plain meaning of these terms construed together is that the sale was meant to be contingent upon the purchaser’s ability to obtain a loan in the amount stated, and that until compliance with this condition precedent the contract is not enforceable. See Mutual Benefit Health &c. Assn. v. Hulme, 57 Ga. App. 876, 883 (197 SE 85) and citations; Pope v. Harper, 40 Ga.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Benefield v. MaloneCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. HulmeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
- Scott v. LewisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Scarborough v. NovakCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
- Pappadea v. CliftonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Panfel v. BoydCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
- Grier v. BrogdonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1998
- Williams v. BellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
- Airport Inn Enterprises, Inc. v. RamageNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
- Denton v. HoggeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.