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.
John Bleakley Ford, Inc. v. Estes
Citations: 164 Ga. App. 547; 298 S.E.2d 270; 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2863Docket: 65188, 65189
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; November 24, 1982; Georgia; State Appellate Court
John Bleakley Ford, Inc. operated a dealership on property owned by Estes without a written lease since 1972. Following a dispossessory proceeding initiated by Estes in 1978, a consent judgment allowed Bleakley to remain on the premises until September 30, 1979, unless a new agreement was made. In March 1979, Estes signed a five-year lease with a third party contingent on that party obtaining an automobile dealership. On August 9, 1979, Estes filed suit against Bleakley to prevent the removal of equipment and sought damages. Bleakley claims an oral agreement was reached with Estes to enter into a written lease after October 1, 1979, contingent on the third party not acquiring a dealership. Relying on this agreement, Bleakley allegedly declined a valuable alternative location for its business. On September 26, 1979, Estes obtained a writ of possession, which was subsequently set aside. After further litigation, the court allowed Bleakley to remain in possession by paying rent into court and posting a bond. In the appeal, Bleakley argues that Estes is estopped from denying the oral agreement. However, the court found that no binding contract existed since essential terms such as rental amount and lease term were not agreed upon, thus rendering Bleakley’s reliance on Estes’ assurances unjustified. The court dismissed Bleakley’s counterclaim as moot since he had voluntarily vacated the premises and found no evidence of fraudulent intent in Estes’ statements regarding the potential lease. In a separate appeal (Case Number 65189), Estes contended that the trial court erred by not adding Bleakley individually as a party to the lawsuit. However, this issue became moot after the summary judgment in favor of Estes was granted, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment was affirmed in Case Number 65188, and the appeal in Case Number 65189 was dismissed.