Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Kersh v. Manis Wholesale Co.
Citations: 219 S.E.2d 604; 135 Ga. App. 943; 18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 449; 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1881Docket: 50830
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; September 5, 1975; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Douglas and Dorothy Kersh filed a complaint against Manis Wholesale Co. and Wheeler J. Manis in the Whitfield Superior Court, alleging default on a lease agreement with specified terms, including a monthly rent of $350, the condition of the premises at surrender, removal of fixtures, and occupancy requirements. Following the alleged default, the lessors demanded payment, prompting the lessee to send a certified check for $700, which included a note stating that acceptance of the check constituted a full and final settlement of all obligations under the lease. The lessors did not endorse the check but had it certified by the bank. The lease specified that the lessor was not required to make repairs except for specific materials, and required the lessee to pay all laborers and materialmen. The defendants denied the allegations and claimed that the lessors' acceptance of the certified check discharged their obligations. The trial court granted a motion to dismiss based on this discharge, leading to an appeal. The Court of Appeals referenced prior case law, noting that if a check is certified at the payee’s request, it effectively constitutes payment, releasing the drawer from further obligations. The certification of the check was thus deemed an acceptance of payment under the terms specified on the check, impacting the ongoing legal issues in the case. Certification of a check binds the payee to the notations on the check, including any releases of claims against the drawer. In this case, the plaintiffs accepted payment for the check, which resulted in the release of claims against the drawer. The remaining issue involves the defendants' alleged breach of the lease agreement, specifically regarding property condition and negligence related to fire safety. The defendants are accused of failing to maintain fire alarms and extinguish a fire, leading to damages of $30,000. The plaintiffs argue that the lease did not release them from tort claims, although the obligation to maintain fire safety stemmed from the contract. The tenant's duty to return the premises in good condition absolved the landlord of responsibility. Even though the damage claim may be considered tortious, it arose from the contractual obligations. Consequently, the court ruled that an accord and satisfaction occurred, encompassing the damages claimed, and upheld the dismissal of the case.