Unique Designs, Inc. v. Pittard MacHinery Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[t]he confusion over the purchase price and the open terms in the agreement were not sufficient to negate the clear intent of the parties to enter into an enforceable agreement”
• holding that the sale of a single lathe two years before transaction at issue in the case could not be construed as a “sequence of previous conduct” under OCGA § 11-1-205 (1)
• holding that dispute over the purchase price and the accessory packages to be included in sale of lathe was insufficient to negate the clear intent of the parties to enter into an enforceable agreement
• concluding that the plain and unambiguous language of § 11-1-205(1) mandates that the sale of a single lathe, which occurred more than two years prior to the transaction in issue, is not a ‘sequence of previous conduct’
• holding that dispute over the purchase price and the accessory packages to be included in sale of lathe was insufficient to negate the clear intent of the parties to enter into an enforceable agreement
• “lost volume seller[ ] refers to a seller who due to the nature of its business, is damaged by a buyer’s breach to the extent that it loses the entire profit from the sale.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).