in order to preserve for appellate review an objection to a trial court’s refusal to give a party’s written requested charge, “all that is needed after the charge is a perfunctory objection identifying the omitted requested charge”
How later courts described this case
- in order to preserve for appellate review an objection to a trial court’s refusal to give a party’s written requested charge, “all that is needed after the charge is a perfunctory objection identifying the omitted requested charge”
- creditor’s acceptance of a conditional payment extinguishes the disputed debt by operation of law, notwithstanding protests that remainder is due, even with no meeting of minds
- “Although punitive damages cannot be imposed without a finding of some form of culpable conduct ... Cook presented evidence showing that First Union pursued the foreclosure even though Cook had made it known that his security deed had been marked paid____”
- provision for “liquidated damages” was unenforceable where “there is no evidence the [liquidated damages] bore any reasonable relationship to the actual damages which might accrue”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Andrews, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
Although I concur fully in Divisions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6,1 must concur specially as to Division 3 because I believe Golden Peanut (Golden) was entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of accord and *241 satisfaction.
As set out in the majority, it is not disputed that in October 1990, Coan, on behalf of Golden, told Bass and Varner that $875 per ton on the quota peanuts and the floor price on the additional peanuts was all that Golden was going to pay and there would be no further discussion of the 1990 peanuts. It is also undisputed that, after this declaration by Coan, Varner-Bass was sent, received, and cashed over $900,000 in payments based on the $875 per ton quota peanuts and floor price per ton additional peanuts. As Bass testified, “we had to take it. We couldn’t turn down any checks.” Varner estimated that his and Bass’ personally guaranteed debt for Varner-Bass was approximately $36 million and they did not refuse the money paid by Golden or make any protest at that time that additional monies were owed on the 1990 peanuts.
The later protest, made by instituting this litigation and contending in response to Golden’s motion for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict that the payments were accepted only as an advance on a larger sum, was unavailing. Redmond & Co. v. Atlanta &c. R., 129 Ga. 133, 136 ( 58 SE 874 ) (1907) (acceptance of money due to great financial distress does not prevent accord and satisfaction); Hamilton & Co. v. Stewart, 105 Ga. 300, 302 ( 31 SE 184 ) (1898); M. Walter & Co. v. North Highland Assembly of God, 188 Ga. App. 852 ( 374 SE2d 792 ) (1988).
Therefore, I believe Golden was entitled to a directed verdict or j.n.o.v. on the defense of accord and satisfaction. See Gary v. E. Frank Miller Constr. Co., 208 Ga. App. 73, 75 (2) ( 430 SE2d 182 ) (1993).