Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Key v. Bagen
Citations: 221 S.E.2d 234; 136 Ga. App. 373; 18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 882; 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1355Docket: 51238
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; October 29, 1975; Georgia; State Appellate Court
In the case of Key v. Bagen, the Court of Appeals of Georgia addressed a dispute arising from the sale of a horse, Lilting Heart, by Dr. John Hartley, Jr. through his agents, Leonard and Sarah Bagen. The horse was purchased by Ernest D. Key, Jr. for his daughter based on representations made by the agents, who were aware the horse was unsuitable for a young rider. After the horse threw Key's daughter while riding, Key sought a refund or replacement, which was not provided, prompting him to sue for breach of warranty and misrepresentation. The court noted that although the sale appeared casual, it fell under the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs transactions involving goods. It affirmed that any affirmations made about the horse constituted an express warranty that the horse would meet the stated conditions. The court found that the allegations of fraud were sufficiently detailed, as they outlined the agents’ misrepresentations regarding the horse's suitability for a novice rider. The court differentiated this case from prior cases, noting that the essentials of fraud had been met, as the agents made false representations that Key relied upon. It also stated that while generally agents are not liable for their principal's defaults, under the new Civil Practice Act, claims for tort and contract could be combined, allowing Key to sue both the owner for breach of contract and the agents for tort. The court concluded that the petition should not have been dismissed unless it was clear that Key could not prove any facts supporting his claims. Finding that the court erred in dismissing the petition, the judgment was reversed. Judges Deen and Stolz concurred with the decision.