Georgia Real Estate Commission v. James

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “substantial misrepresentation” and “dishonest dealings” require a finding of an intention to mislead
• holding that “substantial misrepresentation” as employed in OCGA § 43-40-25 (a) (2), is analogous to fraud and requires an “intention to mislead.”
• “It has long been the rule in this state that ordinarily promises to perform some act in the future will not amount to fraud in legal acceptation, although subsequently broken without excuse, and especially is this true of a promise to pay money.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).