lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
OWENS v. LANDSCAPE PERFECTIONS, INC.
A94A2559.
BLACKBURN, Judge.
Action on contract. Gwinnett Superior Court. Before Judge Winegarden.
This is an appeal from the trial court's judgment entered in favor of appellee Landscape Perfections, Inc. (Landscape) following a bench trial.
However, Steve Owens did agree with the price contained in the proposal, and informed Adams to proceed with the landscaping project. In Adams' affidavit, which was admitted into evidence without objection, he opined that $19,241 was the reasonable value of the landscaping services. This evidence was not controverted.
The project was completed at the end of October 1989. Neither Steve nor Jean Owens complained about the landscaping work upon completion. Based upon the Owenses' failure to pay for the landscaping services rendered in spite of several letters of demand sent to Steve Owens, Landscape commenced the instant complaint in quantum meruit. The Owenses admitted in their answer that Landscape and Steve Owens agreed on certain landscaping work for which defendant Steve Owens would pay Landscape $19,241, and that Landscape performed all work as agreed. However, Steve Owens subsequently filed a Chapter 7 petition for bankruptcy, and thereafter, in accordance with 11 USC 362, the claims against him were stayed. The case proceeded to trial solely against Jean Owens.
1. " 'Ordinarily, when one renders service or transfers property which is valuable to another, which the latter accepts, a promise is implied to pay the reasonable value thereof.' OCGA 9-2-7." Ga. Tile Distrib. v. Zumpano Enterprises, 205 Ga. App. 487, 488 (1) (422 SE2d 906) (1992). In the present case, Owens and her husband accepted nearly $20,000 in landscaping services without complaint and have received the benefit of those services. Consequently, the trial court did not err in concluding that a recovery in favor of Landscape based upon quantum meruit was appropriate. Id. Therefore, the trial court did not err in failing to grant Owens' motion to dismiss or in entering judgment in favor of Landscape.
2. We have reviewed Owens' remaining enumerations of error and find them to be without merit.
Robert A. Wilkinson, for appellee.
Gershon, Olim, Katz & Loeb, Jay E. Loeb, for appellant.
DECIDED NOVEMBER 29, 1994 -- RECONSIDERATION DENIED DECEMBER 14, 1994 -- CERT. APPLIED FOR.
Thursday May 21 06:53 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com