Design Engineering, Construction International Inc. v. Cessna Finance Corp.
Georgia Court of Appeals
164 Ga. App. 159 (1982)
- Written by Sheryl McGrath, JD
Facts
Outlaw Aircraft Sales Inc. (Outlaw) (defendant) sold an airplane under a contract of conditional sale to Design Engineering, Construction International Inc. (Design) (plaintiff). Outlaw and Design also executed a promissory note as part of the sale. In keeping with the provisions in the contract that allowed assignment, Outlaw assigned the contract and the note to Cessna Finance Corporation (Cessna Finance) (defendant). The contract allowed Cessna Finance, as assignee, to take the contract free of any claims that Design might have against Outlaw. After Outlaw assigned the contract to Cessna Finance, Design defaulted on the contract and the note. Design then sued Outlaw, Cessna Finance, and another entity. Design alleged two claims against Cessna Finance: (1) breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose and (2) rescission of the contract and note under § 2-609 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Cessna Finance then filed a counterclaim to require Design to fulfill Design’s payment duties under the contract and note. After discovery, Cessna Finance sought summary judgment on Design’s claims and Cessna Finance’s counterclaim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Cessna Finance on Design’s claims and the counterclaim. Design appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Carley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
