Peachstate Developers LLC v. Greyfield Resources Inc.

Peachstate Developers, LLC “Peachstate”, appeals the grant of summary judgment to Greyfield Resources, Inc. “Greyfield” , on Peachstate’s claims against Greyfield for breach of a contract in which Peachstate was to purchase certain real property from Greyfield for $200,000. Peachstate contends the trial court erred by finding that the parties intended that time should be of the essence and also erred by denying its motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below we agree that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Greyfield and reverse that portion of the order. Further, also for the reasons stated below, we find that the trial court did not err by denying Peachstate’s motion for summary judgment, and, thus, affirm the denial of that motion.

This dispute arose after a contract for the purchase and sale of land did not close. The contract provision on closing stated that “unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties, closing shall take place thirty days 30 after written confirmation of sewage availability is received by the Purchaser from the City of East Point or December 31, 2002, which ever is earlier.” The parties do not dispute that no provision in the contract stated that time would be of the essence. Although containing provisions on default, the contract does not define that term or specify what would occur if the contract did not close on the closing date. The contract also contains a merger clause and provides that all amendments must be in writing and signed by the parties, and further provides that the “seller agrees that this contract is contingent on receiving sewer capacity/environmentals/zoning restrictions.”